Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jaiswal Steel Enterprises (P) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC566
1. The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 51,720/- on the ground that they had cleared Pig Iron and C.I. Skull to three different buyers on payment of duty under Rule 47F(i)(ii) at the rates higher than the purchase value and thus paid excess duty. This claim is made for the excess duty paid during the period from 12-11-95 to 6-1-96. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Bhopal, however, passed an order dated 3-7-99 on the refund claim of the party in which he has observed that as per Section 12B, every person who has paid the duty of excise on any goods shall, unless the contrary is proved by him, be deemed to have passed on the full incidences of such duty to the buyer of such goods. Further, in view of Section 11B(1), any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application, accompanied by documentary or other evidences to establish that the amount of duty in relation to which the refund is claimed was collected from or paid by him and the i...
Monika India Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT602TriDel
1. These are five applications for waiver of pre-deposit, filed by M/s.Monika India, S/Shri S.P. Goyal, Sanjeev Goyal, Rakesh Goyal and H. L.Goyal, all partners against the penalties imposed on them by the Commissioner of Customs under the impugned order. Shri H.L. Goyal has been represented by Shri H. O. Arora, learned Advocate/ whereas all other applicants have been represented by Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, submitted that the applicants imported consignment of synthetic waste which has been held by the Commissioner under the impugned order as not synthetic waste but as synthetic filament tow/synthetic staple fibre falling under Heading 55.01/55.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the first test report indicated that the samples were man-made staple fibre of non-cellulosic origin (acrylic) in the form of loosely compressed sheets; that the conclusion of the report was that the sample can be considered as good virgin staple fibre; o...
Asian Latex Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd, Tkd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT116TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is as to what is the date of clearance of the goods for the purpose of rate of duty etc.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants have a unit in NOIDA Export Processing Zone for manufacture and export of latex gloves. The appellants were using the goods procured free of duty for production of goods for export. A show cause notice was issued by Customs authority asking the appellants to explain as to why Customs duty amounting to Rs. 40,57,328/- with interest should not be recovered and why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,384/- on the capital goods should not be recovered with interest, why imported capital goods lying unutilized be not confiscated and why indigenous capital goods lying unutilized be not confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed. Learned Commissioner of Customs ordered as under: (i) confiscate the impugned imported capital goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in discha...
Star Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC263
1. M/s. Star Wire (India) Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs.Learned Commissioner in the impugned order held - "The above said categorical remark of the Chemical Examiner in the absence of remnant sample, ought to be accepted. The logical inference would be that the iron content was less than 4% as otherwise the Chemical Examiner would not have made the above said categorical remark. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the goods in question were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8111.00 and the duty was leviable @ of 35% basic + 10% (SC) + 16% CVD + 4% SAD (effective rate 67.086%)." On the question of lack of jurisdiction, learned Commissioner observed - "However the fact remains that in the instant case, the goods were provisionally assessed subject to test bond. Hence the limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was not applicable." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant...
Shri Jaivir Singh Dheeman, S/O Sh. Ram Kishan, Airport Authority of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT553
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule . 2. Petitioner has challenged the memorandum passed by the respondent on January 29, 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer re-designated as DGM-Engg. (Civil). It is the case of the petitioner that on 5.10.1995 the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of Executive Engineers to the post of Superintending Engineer was held and the name of the petitioner was also considered. However, a charge-sheet dated 27.12.1995 was issued by the respondent which was prepared by the Executive Director (Vigilance) of the respondent the same was received by the petitioner in the first week of January, 1996. 3. Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had moved this Court by filing a writ petition (CWP No. 3440/96) and the petitioner was informed by the respondent that the case of promotion of petitioner was kept in a sealed cover till the pendency o...
Shri Kuldeep Singh, S/O Shri Satbir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ672Del
Vijender Jain, J.1. A short controversy emerges in this writ petition as to whether in view of the payment made by the respondent on account of compensation to the petitioner who was rendered medically unfit and was retired prematurely on medical ground, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 33,125/- as compensation under the scheme and a sum of Rs. 70,941.60 was paid as compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act in lieu of alternative employment. It was contended before me that respondents have formulated the scheme in view of the directive given by Supreme Court in Anand Bihari and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. : AIR1991SC1003 . The scheme was formulated by the respondent and the amount of compen...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT593; 2003(1)SLJ208(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. By this writ petition petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 29th November, 2001.2. Facts giving rise to the writ petition are as under.The respondent worked in the Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India w.e.f. 28th August, 1951 to 29th May 1961. The period for which he worked in the Rehabilitation Department comes to 9 years, 9 months and 2 days. Thereafter he joined the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (for short ONGC); a Government of India undertaking, on being selected for the post of Superintendent. The appointment was in consonance with the policy of the ONGC to absorb surplus employees of the Government. The respondent retired on 31st March, 1987 from the service of the ONGC. After his retirement from ONGC, the respondent sought pro rata pension from the Government of India in respect of the service which was rendered by him in the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India before his a...
Association of Ups and Power Conditioning Systems Manufacturer Vs. Soc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR399(Delhi); II(2004)BC307; 107(2003)DLT673
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Whether a condition for tender can be directed to be set aside on the ground of unreasonableness is the question involved in this writ petition.2. The respondents herein issued a notice inviting tender, which was published in the Indian Express on or about 14.05.2002. By reason of the said advertisement, two tenders were invited, which are in the following terms:-'1. Tender No. SMR/MSD/AG1/CNOSy/20031.For..Due on 10.5.2002PENTIUM PC WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AS PER TENDER DOCUMENTS(ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS TO QUOTE SUPPLY, INSTALL AND MAINTAIN PCs AT 34 LOCATIONS ALL OVER INDIAQty 34 Nos.2. Tender No. SMR/MSD/A61/CNC60/20031.For..Due on 10.6.20021 KVA ONLINE UPS AS PER SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN IN THE TENDER DOCUMENTS(ONLY ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER HAVING ANNUAL TURNOVER OF RS. 10 CRORES TO QUOTE SUPPLY & INSTALL THE SYSTEM) Qty 34 Nos.'3. The contention of the petitioner is whereas in relation to the first tender, the condition of annual turnover of Rs. 10 Crores h...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surekha Bakshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ715; 99(2002)DLT786
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.04.1998 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder an appeal field by the appellant herein questioning an Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Tribunal') was dismissed.2. The deceased J.S. Bakshi was an Income Tax Officer. While going on a scooter with one Smt. Shashi Prabha Sehgal, who was riding on the pillion seat, an accident occurred when a three-wheeler scooter being driven by one Jasbir Singh in a rash and negligent manner collided with the scooter of the deceased. As a result of impact of the accident, the right leg of the deceased came under the wheel of the said three-wheeler scooter. He was removed to the hospital and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries on 08.05.1987.3. The learned Tribunal on a application made by his heirs and legal representatives passed an Award of Rs. 3,60,000/-.The defense of the appell...
Baij Nath Agarwalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT684; 2002(84)ECC219
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1.The short question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the property of relative of a detenu under the provisions of smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, 1976 (in short, 'the said Act') can be confiscated without establishing a nexus with the purported illegal acquired properties and the earnings out of the activities which are prohibited by law.2. The fact of the matter is undisputed.Mr. Sawarmal Agarwalla, brother of the writ petitioner herein was detained under the said Act for a period of about 20 months during 1995-97. The writ petitioner herein was treated as an 'affected person' under Section 2(2)(c) of the said Act. Notice under Section 6(1) of the said Act was issued on 15.10.1980 thereby calling upon the writ petitioner herein as to why the properties specified therein should not be declared to be illegally acquired propertied and forfeited to the Central Government. The new incumbents ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »