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.
Sipra Chaterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC178
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, the widow of late Shri M.N. Chatterjee, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in rejecting her claim under the Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 111793283, for the death of her husband. Respondent LIC rejected the claim on the ground that the insurance policy had lapsed on account of failure to pay the premium. It however offered a sum of Rs. 10,000/- being the paid up value of the policy, which was not acceptable to the petitioner. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are given hereinafter:2. Petitioner's husband late Shri M.N. Chatterjee, a young Advocate, met with an accident on 1.3.1997. He was hit by a truck belonging to the Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF), Petitioner was immediately rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Petitioner claims as a result of the serious head injuries sustained, her husband Mr. M.N. Chatterjee we...
Shri Balkishan Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ265
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing the order of cancellation of allotment of flat No. 32, First Floor, Sector 15, block F, Pocket 4, Rohini, Delhi. A direction is also sought to respondents to restore the allotment of said flat in favor of petitioner and deliver its vacant possession to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated facts of this case are that petitioner applied for allotment of LIG flat under 'Registration Scheme on New Pattern, 1979 of Intending Purchasers of Flats to be constructed by the Delhi Development Authority' in October, 1979. By letter dated 30th January, 1989 the petitioner informed the respondent/DDA about change in address from 1958, Kucha Chelan, Khari Baoli Delhi to House No. 6073, Gali Batshan, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The said letter was diarised at S.No. 3449 on 24th February, 1989. The petitioner was allotted flat No. 32, First Floor, Sector 15, Block 'F' Pocket 4, rohini, Delhi on hire purchase basis in the draw of lots held...
Cit Vs. Laxman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN596(Delhi)
ORDERBy the Court At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the rural area of Union Territory of Delhi ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gain arising on transfer of the agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi, could not be charged to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The reference, arising out of Income Tax Appeal No. 1325 (Del) of 1979, pertains to the assessment year 1974-75. Since the questions referred for our opinion, are no longer res integra and concluded by the decisions of this court in Income Tax Reference Nos. 184-185 of 1982, dated 31-7-1997 and Income Tax Reference Nos. 478-479 of 1983 dated 28-5...
Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC366
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original, dated 27-2-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the duty and imposed penalties on the appellants as detailed in the order itself.2. The appellant No. 1, M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. is a company (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Company') engaged in the manufacture of P & P Food Products, such as, assorted jams, pickles, squashes, cooking sauces, chutneys, syrups, synthetic vinegars etc. The company is also trading in sugar, salt and pepper by packing into small packs. The appellant No. 2, Shri Yunus A. Kalvert is the Managing Director of the Company. The Revenue authorities visited the factory premises of the company on 22-11-2000. One tempo was standing there loaded with the goods and the same was seized. The goods found lying excess in the stock than what were entered into RG-I register, valued at Rs. 7,33,668/- were also seized. Thereafter, search was ...
Max G.B. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT203TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Bulk Drugs/Drug Intermediates falling under Chapter 29. They are denied Modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 4,24,601/- availed by them during the period from April, 95 to June, 95 on the structural steel items viz., CHN Channels, FLTS Plain Plates, Chequerred Plates, JSTI Joists and Angles, etc., as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants claimed that these are plant items and are used in the mounting and installation of machinery; that chemical process machinery are essentially mounted/installed on the frames fabricated from Structural Steels and these items forms the basic installation on which such machinery is mounted/installed. They contended that these items are distinguishable from other steel items which are used in building construction. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ropar Division vide his Order dated 2-1-98 however denied them the Modvat credit on the ground that the structural steel used for e...
S.S. Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC271
1. These are two applica- tions filed by M/s. Enterprises and S.K.Electronics for rectification of mistake said to have crept in Tribunal's Misc. Order Nos. M/1-10/20QO-NB, dated 10-1-2000 [2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal)].2. Shri Ajay Jha, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture, stamping and lamination and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product; that the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the Modvat credit cannot be availed of on the challan issued by Steel Authority of India Ltd., which were endorsed twice; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeals; that their appeals filed before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal were also rejected; that the Hon'ble Bangalore High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 34159-34160/1997 quashed the order passed by the Tribunal and restored the appeal filed by them; that the Hon'ble High Court, further, direc...
Kawatra Papers Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC638
1. These four appeals were heard together as the issue in all the four appeals is the same and arose out of the same impugned order and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board of different types such as cream wove paper, duplex, board etc. On a visit to the factory premises Central Excise Officers scrutinised certain records and found that M/s.Kawatra Papers Ltd. had a Godown of M/s. Himgiri Paper Enterprises (P) Ltd. In the same premises. Statements of various persons including of Shri Jagdish Verma, Gopal Singh Rawat etc. were recorded. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 22,73,920 and cess Rs. 56,291 for the period from 1.7.94 to 31.3.97 and Rs. 1,13,124 and cess Rs. 2,970 for the period of June 1997 should not be demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q...
Pal Brothers Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT123TriDel
1. These are two applications filed by M/s. Pal Brothers for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,47,312/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned orders.2. Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture electromagnet assembly which according to them is classifiable under Heading 90.33 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act as part of electro meter whereas the department has classified them under Heading 85.05.He further, mentioned that the impugned product is a component of two sub-assembled products namely electromagnet and power factor which is manufactured by them as per specification of all the buyers who manufacture electric supply meters. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Foundary Plant and Partners Pvt. Ltd. v.CCE, Aurangabad - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 106 wherein it was held that worm gears and shafts being part of speedometer are classifiable under Heading 90.33 of the Centr...
J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC503
1. This is an appeal against disallowance of Modvat credit on ropeway which is stated to be utilised for the manufacture of cement and clinker. In the manufacture of clinker the appellants are availing the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods and inputs. The captive mines are located at 5.8 kms from the factory. The entire quantity of limestone excavated in the mines is crushed at the mines and the crushed limestone is transferred to the factory by means of a ropeway to be utilised for the manufacture of clinker and cement in the factory. The Department alleged that since the ropeways are not within the factory, therefore, they cannot be treated as capital goods for the purpose of Modvat credit. Commissioner (Appeals), accordingly, confirmed the demand already confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner in his adjudicating order.2. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Counsel submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this ...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. G.P. Goyal and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC125
1. The appellant-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has come forward with this appeal against the final order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as DRT), dated 18.12.2000 in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Sirohi Cement Ltd. and Ors. (O.A. No. 473/96 renumbered as O.A. 476/96). By this order, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Jaipur held that the suit for the recovery of money against the 4th defendant (the first respondent herein) is not maintainable and is time-barred and, therefore, dismissed the claim of the appellant Bank as against the said 4th defendant.2. Service on the respondents in this appeal has been effected by substituted service, i.e. publication in the newspaper. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard.3. The case of the appellant-Bank before the DRT was that the 2nd respondent-company was sanctioned Cash Credit Hypothe...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »