Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Suvidha Engineers (India) Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC83
2. Prima facie, the appellants have got a strong case being covered by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Batliboi & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur, 2002 (140) ELT 100 (T). Therefore, the stay applications of the appellants are allowed unconditionally.3. With the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals on merits itself.4. The above-captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 5.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner vide which he has confirmed the duty and imposed penalties as detailed in the order itself.5. The appellants No. 1, M/s. Suvidha Engineers (India) Ltd., are the independent contractors for the manufacture, installation and commissioning of Heating Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Systems. They had carried out Ducting/Air-conditioning work at Hotel Metropolitan Nikko, but they did not discharge the Central Excise duty on such installation work. They were served with a show cause notice requiring them to pay the Central Exc...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT545TriDel
1. Even though these cases are posted today only for consideration of stay application, we have heard both sides on merits and on consent of both sides we are proceeding to dispose of the appeals themselves.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh is in appeal after loosing the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).3. The appellants are manufacturers of cotton yarn and acrylic yarn.They availed themselves of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/99 on the ground that the yarn manufactured by them did not contain "synthetic fibre". It was produced from cotton fibre and viscose fibre. It was the appellant's contention, which has been accepted in the proceedings before the lower authorities, that viscose fibre fell in the category of "artificial fibre" and not synthetic fibre. It would appear that the audit authorities held that all man-made fibres fell in the category of synthetic fibre in view of Note 1 to Chapter 54 of the Cen...
Air Light Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT686TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture and supply, against specific contract, to M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited, "Cooler Kit". The Cooler Kit consists essentially of fan and pump. The Cooler Kit is sold by the appellant manufacturer at a contracted price to M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited.M/s. Crompton Greaves, in turn, markets the kit at the MRP of Rs. 1695/- per piece. The impugned order has held that the kit is liable to pay duty on the basis of the MRP in terms of Notification No. 20/99, dated 28-2-99.2. Notification No. 20/99 has been issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That section makes a special provision for valuation of goods covered the requirement for affixing M.R.P. The effect of the notification is that goods specified in the table to the notification shall be subjected to Central Excise duty at the assessable value obtained by reducing the abatement prescribed in the notification from the retail sale price of the item. Serial No. ...
Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC640
2. We have heard both sides and gone through the impugned order. The Commissioner has failed, in our view, to comply with the directions given in the remand order and also to follow the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Supreme Steels and General Mills, 2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (SC). Therefore, the appellants have got a strong, prima facie, case and, we accordingly allow the stay application.3. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to hear the appeal on merits itself.4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots of Non-alloy Steel. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the determination of the ACP of the unit of the appellants. The Tribunal vide order dated 8-4-2002 directed the adjudicating authority for determining the duty liability of the appellants in accordance with the provisions of Section 3A (4) and (5) of the Central Excise Act, as they opted for payment of the duty on the basis of actual production. The adju...
Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT387TriDel
1. The issue raised in this case is the durability of defective goods received by a manufacturer for reprocessing and return.Lustre Print Media Ltd. v. Collector, Meerut - [2000 (119) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal)] that no duty is payable in respect of defective goods which are received by a manufacturer and returned after reprocessing.3. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any, to the appellants....
M.M. Mushrooms and anr. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC81
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. The appellants who were defendants in O. A. 507/1999 before DRT, Chandigarh, filed an application to set aside the ex pane final order dated 8.6.2000. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh considered the application and directed that the application for setting aside the ex parte final order will be allowed, subject to the condition that the appellants deposit Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) within 2 months with the applicant Bank, which may be adjusted towards the loan account, with a further condition that in case the recovery application is dismissed, the said amount will be refunded to the appellants with interest. The appellants were also directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only). The learned Presiding Officer made this conditional order with the stipulation that if the amount is not deposited on time as fixed, the application for setting aside the ex, parte final order will stand dismissed.2. The ...
The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Sh. Govinda Pathara Rolling Mills
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC47
1. Appellant-Bank of Rajasthan filed O.A. No. 408/2000 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). Jaipur, for the recovery of money against defendants 1 to 4 therein. The 5th defendant is another Bank and is stated to have a charge over the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the original application (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.A.'). The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement, alleging, among other things, that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur, and, therefore, the appellant-Bank cannot maintain the proceedings before the said DRT.They had also moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the DRT. Therefore, the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur, considered thequestion of territorial jurisdiction and decided by the order dated 5.7.2001 that except the sanction, entire transaction took place at Chennai, and, therefore, the DRT had no jurisdiction to decide the O.A.He, therefore, directed the O.A. to be returne...
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Sh. Govinda Pathara Rolling Mills
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC17
1. Appellant-Bank of Rajasthan filed O.A. No. 408/2000 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT), Jaipur, for the recovery of money against defendants 1 to 4 therein. The 5th defendant is another Bank and is stated to have a charge over the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.A.'). The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement, alleging, among other things, that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur and, therefore, the appellant-Bank cannot maintain the proceedings before the said DRT.They had also moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the DRT, Therefore, the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur, considered the question of territorial jurisdiction and decided by the order dated 5.7.2001 that except the sanction, entire transaction took place at Chennai and, therefore, the DRT had no jurisdiction to decide the O.A.He, therefore, directed the O.A. to be returned ...
Design Team Consultants (P) Ltd. Vs. Salar Jung Museum and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT796; [2003]42SCL30(Delhi)
K.S. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner filed this petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act'), inter alia, alleging that it is a consultancy concern specialising in the field of architecture and interior designing etc. It was previously working under the name and style of M/s. Design Team and had entered into an agreement dated 17th January, 1991 also containing arbitration clause being No. 14 with respondent No. 1. Under this agreement, the fee chargeable by the petitioner for the building to be constructed for Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad was to be at the rate of 4% of the approved preliminary cost estimate. Vide letter No. II-15/(iii)/91-92-385 dated 21st May, 1991, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that it had approved the preliminary cost estimate of the building at Rs. 10.52 crores. It is further alleged that petitioner completed 60% of the work in three phases but the payment made by respondent No. 1 was calculated at the rate o...
Shri L.C. Lai and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi63
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) for Probate has been filed by the petitioner, as the Executors, in respect of the Will dated 30.9.1992 of Late Shri K.R. Kalia. The objector Shri Deepak Kalia is the only son of the deceased. The wife and unmarried daughter of the deceased testator had pre-deceased him.2. In the petition for grant of Probate, the petitioners submitted that the deceased had left behind two immovable properties, C-667, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 and B-6, Sector-5, Chandigarh, particulars of which were given in Schedule-A. The liabilities of the deceased were mentioned in Schedule-B and the movable properties in Schedule-C. The deceased testator, an Advocate, was a resident of Delhi and had died at Delhi on 14.11.1992.3. The objector, who is the only son of the deceased, filed objections to the grant of Probate pleading that the Will propounded by the petitions was a f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »