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.
Ashok Layland Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC833
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur dated 12.10.2000. Under the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 64,81,078 (Modvat credit), Rs. 22,64,168.70 (debit already appropriated and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,67,200 under Rule 571(4) and a further penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 under Rule 173-Q(1)(bb).There is also a demand of interest under Rule 57-1(5). The period involved is from August 1994 to September 1997. The show cause notice is dated 4.8.99.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87. They have a factory at Alwar in Rajasthan and another one at Ennore, Madras. The components are manufactured at Ennore, Madras and are supplied to Alwar Factory where assembly of motor vehicles takes effect. Some of the components are purchased from outside by the Ennore factory and sent to Alwar. Under the show cause notice dated 4.8.99 issued by the Com...
Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC798
1. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited is a manufacturer of motor vehicles which are liable to central excise duty on ad-valorem basis. From 1998 to March 2001 they offered a Special Rebate to dealers in respect of three varieties of motor vehicles. The rate of the rebate was Rs. 1000 per Maruti 800 cars & Omni Vans and Rs. 2000 per Esteem cars. The central excise duty was paid on these vehicles on the basis of assessable values which excluded the special rebate from the price of the vehicles. Under the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner of Central Excise has held that it was not permissible to reduce the rebate from the price of the automobiles while fixing the assessable value of the automobiles. Consequently, duty short levied on account of such reduction has been demanded in addition to imposing penalties equal to the duty short levied and interest on the short levy.2. The finding regarding ineligibility of the special rebates for reduction has been reached on the ground...
Patel Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC359
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common order-in-original dated 29-8-01 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 1,72,36,732/- with penalty of Rs. 1.50 crores on the firm appellant No. 1 besides ordering confiscation of the unaccounted goods and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the proprietor of the firm (appellant No. 2) and of Rs. 5,00,000/- on appellant No. 3.2. The appellant No. 1 is a firm (hereinafter referred as firm) engaged in the manufacture of 'Har Singar' brand pan masala (sada & Gutkha) falling under Chapter heading 21 of the CETA. On 17-2-97, the officers of the central excise conducted search of the various premises of the firm bearing numbers E-3555-57 and 3637, located at Rajaji Puram, Lucknow. They also conducted search of the trading premises of the appellant No. 3 bearing No. E-3727, Rajaji Puram, Lucknow. During the search of the premises of the firm registered with the central excise...
i.O.C. Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC267
1. These appeals of Indian Oil Corporation raise a common issue i.e whether Reduced Crude Oil (R.C.O) Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) captively consumed by the appellant were eligible for exemption from Central Excise duty. Acordingly, all the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the refining of Crude petroleum which leads to the manufacture of various petroleum products. They produced RCO/LSHS, which are residual fuel oils, and used by them captively in the generation of electricity, which electricity in turn was used in the refinery for refining crude petroleum. The appellants claimed exemption for RCO/LSHS which had been captively consumed based on exemption notifications issued from time to time (Notification Nos.352/77 dated 16.12.77 No. 75/84, No. 67/95 and 8/96 etc.). However, impugned orders held that the exemption was not available on the ground that the exemption is available only to RCO/LSHS directly used in the oil refinery and not t...
Birla Vxl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT549TriDel
1. Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Counsel arguing the stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 83,842/- submits that duty has been demanded on coal ash. He submits that coal ash has been held to be non-excisable. In support of this contention he refers to the judgment contained in Final Order No. 121/89-B, dated 21-4-1989 in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. Learned Counsel submits that the Appellate Tribunal had held that cinder ash was not excisable. He submits that this decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court as the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise against the aforesaid Final Order was dismissed by the Apex Court as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A160. Learned Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T.' 535 held that coal ash 'Cinder' obtained by burning of coal in boiler during the course of generation of ele...
Gopal Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT819
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The land owned by the petitioner was acquired in 1978-80 and on an application for alternative plot in lieu of the acquisition, the case of the petitioner was recommended on 27/11/1987 for said allotment of alternative plot in village Bhorgarh, Delhi of 250 sq. yds. The allotment letter was issued by the DDA on 14/1/1993 allotting plot No. 11, Sector B-4, Pocket-4, measuring 209 sq. metres in Narela Residential Scheme. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within time, this allotment was cancelled but on representation of the petitioner, allotment was restored on 12/3/1997. The petitioner deposited the full amount on 8/8/1997 and submitted the requisite documents on 11/6/1997. The possession was yet to be handed-over.4. A letter was received by the respondent on 11/7/1997 from one Dr. K.S. Solanki, stating that the property had been sold b...
Surinder Singh Sihag Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT705; 2003(1)SLJ154(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether red-ink entries awarded to a person by way of reprimand and/or imposition of sentence on earlier occasion itself would be sufficient to discharge an employee from service is the question involved in this writ petition.FACTS:-2. The petitioner joined Indian Army on or about 07.10.1985. After obtaining requisite training, he was posted to Headquarter 2, Mountain Division Provost Unit and served there till March, 1990. Some time in September, 1987, he was promoted to the rank of L/Nk. Thereafter from March, 1990 to November, 1999, he worked at various stations such as HQ Maharashtra and Gujarat Area, HQ 7 Mountain Division, HQ Victor Force in J&K;, and HQ 1 Armour Division at Patiala, etc.2.1 On or about 13.09.1999, he was served with a show cause notice indicating the details of five Red Ink entries incurred in his service record, which are as follows :-(a)Severe Reprimand16 Jan 95AA Sec 48(b)Deprived of Appt of L/Nk.03 Feb 95AA Sec 48(c)Severe Reprimand10 Feb ...
Lalit Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Ved Prakash Vijh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ670
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 8.11.1994 in respect of House No. 8/15-A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi measuring 100 sq. yards.2. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that the defendant is the co-owner of a House constructed on Plot No. 8/15-A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-8. The defendant approached the plaintiff for sale of his share in the said house measuring about 100 sq. yards and showed him the copies of the documents in support of his title. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the said house for a sum of Rs. 27 lacs and accordingly, an agreement dated 8.11.1994 was entered into between the parties. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the defendant. Rs. 50,000/- were paid in cash and Rs. 50,000/- were paid by a crossed cheque. The agreement was signed by the parties and attested by two witnesses. It was also agreed that a formal agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2/- would be executed on 9.11.1994 recor...
Shri Ram Niwas Vs. Shri Lakshmi Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT252
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only) is directed against an order dated 26th April, 2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller in E.No. 212/1994 allowing the respondent's petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and passing eviction orders against the petitioner in respect of suit premises at 256, Gali Prakash, Teliwari, Delhi. This order shall also dispose of the petitioner's application No. CM-967/2002 under Section 151 of the CPC for permission to bring on record subsequent events.2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition and the application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner-tenant, briefly stated, are that the respondent had failed a petition for eviction against petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in suit premises but the said premises were required bonafide by him for himself and his family member...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Chief Commissioner for Disabil ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ136
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the LIC) is aggrieved by an order dated 23rd December, 1999 passed by the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights andFull Participation) Act, 1995 (the Act) in Case No.93 of 1999. A letter filed by the LIC for review of this order was turned down by the Deputy Chief Commissioner on 9th March, 2000.2. Pursuant to an advertisement, Respondent No.2 submitted an application for the post of a Peon sometime in February-March, 1997. The application was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad (and also signed by an Orthopedic surgeon and an eye specialist) to the effect that Respondent No.2 is a case of Chorea and that he is 45% disabled.3. Respondent No.2 was called by the LIC for a written test and an interview, both of which he passed. He was then put to a pre-recruitment medical examination in July, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »