Delhi Court September 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Highland Knitwear
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT78TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 26,57,249/- demanded interest under Section 28(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent herein is an exporter and was availing the benefit of duty exemption under the DEEC scheme. The respondent herein imported Acrylic Staple Fibre under the scheme. Under the scheme the respondent herein was permitted to meet the export obligation within a period of 18 months. The respondent herein found that there was difficulty in meeting the export obligation on account of number of commercial reasons. He, therefore, paid duty and interest and cleared the goods for home consumption. The Commissioner adjudicating the case refrained from imposing penalty being aggrieved by this order revenue has filed the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDR for the Revenue a...
Ahmedabad Steel Craft Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT343TriDel
1. M/s. Ahmedabad Steel Craft have filed this Misc. application praying for payment of interest on delayed refunds.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the applicant filed three refund claims due to exports under Bond as per Notification No.85/87 dated 1-3-87. The refund claims were allowed.3. The applicants promptly prepared a work sheet giving details of refund of duty and interest due from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application by the lower authority till the date of 28-2-2002. The authorities below rejected the claim of interest.4. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri K.R. Swami, Chief Executive of the firm submits that Section 11BB stipulates for interest on delayed refunds if not given to the applicants within three months from the date of receipt of respective refund applications. He submits that since the refund in the instant case was under Section 11B, therefore, interest was payable. Ld. Representative submits that N...
Shri Ashok Kumar Jaggi Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT43
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. One Smt. Saroj became a member of respondent No.2 co-operative society on 8.3.1962. During her life time on 11.10.1964 Smt. Saroj transferred her share in favor of her brother Shri Jagmohan Lal who nominated the petitioner as his nominee. In January 1980plot No.780 was allotted to Shri Jagmohan Lal and Shri Jagmohan Lal exchanged the said plot with Smt. Sheila Bhandari to offer plot No.659.2. In January 1982 Shri Jagmohan Lal who was the bachelor applied for transfer of his share in favor of the petitioner who was the son of Smt. Saroj. It may also be noted that originally Smt. Saroj had nominated the petitioner as her nominee.3. A perpetual sub lease deed was executed on 23.2.1982 in favor of the petitioner which was duly registered.4. On13.10.1998 after a lapse of almost 16 years the DDA suddenly decided to issue a letter to the petitioner seeking payment of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jolly and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)465; [2003]259ITR657(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order, dated October 12, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 5425/Delhi of 1995.2. Briefly stated, the material facts are :During the course of assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessed had claimed as expenditure the amount of interest of Rs. 10,25,953 paid to one Jolly Bawa and Associates on the loans raised from them. He was of the view that since under an agreement, dated October 1, 1981, between the assessed and Jolly Bawa and Associates, the latter was to arrange the necessary funds for construction of cinema and for other business activities, the assessed was not required to pay any interest, and, thereforee, the said payment towards interest could not be allowed as business expenditure. Re...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ610
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner was arrested on 27th April, 2002 in case of FIR No. 37/2002, under Sections 302/120B/34, IPC read with Section 25/27, Arms Act, P.S. Gokalpuri, Delhi. The only allegation against him is that the one country made pistol was recovered from him at the instant of co-accused Aarif who made disclosure statement to the effect that he had taken pistol from the petitioner for committing of- . fence. Besides Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was roped under Section 302 with the and of 120-B/34 IPC. But there is no independence evidence to prove that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy except his own disclosure statement which is not admissible in evidence. Challan has already been filed. He is no more required for investigation. There is no evidence of motive against the appellant. Admittedly he did not participated in the commission of crime.2. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00...
Delhi Science Forum Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT944
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation raises a question of far reaching consequences and has wide ramifications. The Delhi Development Authority which is a creature of Delhi Development Act, 1957 acquired the land in question which was agricultural land being in J-Zone allegedly for development. It stands admitted that no approval of the Central Government for use of the land in terms of Section 11A of the said Act has been obtained.2. Admittedly since the date of acquisition till 1999 the first respondent herein did not take any step to move the Central Government for taking any action in terms of Section 11A of the Act. For three years the Central Government also did not take any steps pursuant to or in furtherance of the application filed by the first respondent herein for change in the land user. In the meantime, purported to be on the ground of protecting the land in question from further encroachment as also for other co-latera...
Cce Vs. Bihar Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC473
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise dropping proceedings in regard to duty amounting to Rs. 36,70,183 and penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 9(2) and 173Q of the Rules.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent herein are engaged in the manufacture of Galvanized and Black M.S. Pipes and Tubes. Central Excise Officers visited their factory and conducted stock verification.They found an excess of 75 M.T. in stock of Galvanised Iron Pipes and 70 M.T. in the stock of Black pipes.3. During the search of the premises, the officers came across a private register maintained by the respondents herein. Statements of Shri M.P. Gupta, General Manager, Shri Sanjay Gupta, Director and Shri Narendra Prakash Sharma, Service Engineer were recorded. On a scrutiny of the documents, it was alleged that they had clandestinely removed goods on which Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 36,70,183 was involved, it was als...
Sandeep Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT707TriDel
1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the stay application filed by Shri Sandeep for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass we take up the appeal itself for disposal after granting stay for recovery of the penalty with the consent of the learned SDR.2. The facts in brief are that on 7-1-98 the Central Excise Officers intercepted a Tata-mobile bearing registration No. DL ICC 9126 loaded with speaker bearing brand name 'Pankaj'. As the driver was not having any excise documents the officers seized speaker valued at Rs. 12,300/- and Tata mobile of Rs. 2 lakhs for further action under Central Excise law. Tata mobile is owned by the appellants. The Dy. Commissioner/ under Adjudication Order No. 98/99, dated 18-3-99, confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine, demanded the duty and imposed penalty on M/s. G.C. Electronics. The Dy.Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Pankaj Electronics and Din...
Khandelwal Textiles P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC385
1. These are the 3 appeals against the order dated 30.1.2001, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore-l. The issue relates to availment of Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 1.3.98 as amended by Notification No. 5/99-CE dated 28.2.99. Since the issue involved in all the 3 appeals is common, all the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly stated, the undisputed facts of the case are that on 19.4.99, the officers of the Central Excise visited the unit of the appellants and verified the machines installed and the activities being carried out in the unit. This verification was carried out in the presence of two independent panchas and Shri Abhay Gangwal, General Manager of the Unit. At the time of visit, bleaching of fabrics without use of power or steam was in progress. One machine which Shri Gangwal identified as stentering machine was found installed. Shri Gangwal stated that the machine is in working condition and...
Shri R.K. Sachar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)134PLR18
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The perennial problem of costing of DDA flats has once again given rise to this batch of writ petitions.2. The petitioners were originally registrants under the New Pattern Scheme of 1979 (NPS). In September 1993 a self financing scheme VI-B was announced and persons registered under the NPS were permitted to convert to self-financing scheme. The petitioners applied for conversion and their conversion were accepted.3. In 1994-1985 the SFS VII and VIII scheme registrants were allocated flats but no allocation was made in respect of VI-B scheme. On 8.8.1996 IX SFS scheme was announced and the same was open to genera public as also to the registrants of VI-B scheme. It was stated for the petitioners that this would be the last opportunity given to them and other registrants of VI-B Self Financing Scheme. The petitioners got them registered under the scheme but were still not allocated flats in the draw of lots held for the said IX Self Financing Scheme which resu...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »