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.
M.P. Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC60
1. Appeals filed by M/s. M.P. Iron & Steel Co. and by Shri N.K. Jain were heard together as the two appeals arise out of the same order and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Ld. Commissioner had confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 52,86,759, confirmed penalty of an equal amount and imposed an penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri N.K. Jain, General Manager.3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. M.P. Iron & Steel Co. are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. wire rods, rounds etc. The Officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the appellant and carried out a physical verification of the stock of raw-material and finished goods. On verification it was found that the actual stock of Billets and Blooms was less than the quantity shown in the RG-I register. Statement of Shri Pushpak Bansal, Dy. Manager was recorded. He deposed that he was unable to explain the shortage in stock of Billets and Blooms. Statement of Shri N.K. Jain was a...
Cce Vs. Bansal High Carbon P. Ltd. and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC507
1. The Appeals filed by Revenue though arising out of different orders yet the issue being the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The issue for decision in these two appeals is whether drawing of wire from wire rods amounts to manufacture or not for purpose of levy of duty.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel wires. They surrendered their registration No. stating that drawing of wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture. Department alleged that drawing of wire from wire rods amounts to manufacture and therefore, duty is payable.3. Smt. Nita Lai Bhutalia, learned SDR for Revenue submits that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Order No.1839/2000-B dated 20.10.2000in the case of Mis Vishvaman Industries v. C.C.E., Delhi-I; that this order of the C.E.G.A.T. has not been accepted by the Department and that an appeal has been filed; that the Tribunal held...
Shiwalya Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT610TriDel
1. M/s. Shiwalya Spinning & Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. and M/s. Shiwalya Trading Coprn. have filed the captioned two appeals being aggrieved by the orders passed by the ld. Commissioner confirming demands for duty as also penalties imposed. Since the issue in both the appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants imported certain consignments of acrylic staple fibre and declared them to be of Taiwanese origin. They filed Bills of Entry. The goods were cleared on payment of duty. Enquiries later on conducted revealed that the goods were of Thailand origin on which anti-dumping duty was leviable in terms of Notification No. 81/97. The appellants paid the duty and also paid 25% of the penalty imposed within one month from the date of the order.3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri L.P. Asthana, Id. Counsel submitted that the appellants had paid higher amount of anti-dumping duty ...
Sarjoo Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT826TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. Appellants filed an application for abatement of duty on 4,052.50 qtls. of molasses on the ground that this quantity of molasses was found short due to evaporation, etc. The request of the appellants was rejected vide impugned order.4. The contention of the appellants is that on verification done on 12-11-2000, a shortage of 4,052 qtls. of molasses was found and show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that this shortage was reported after five days whereas, as per the procedure, shortage is to be reported within 24 hours. Appellants also relied upon the instructions dated 18-7-83 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to the effect that two per cent loss in respect of molasses in storage is condonable. The contention of the appellants is that in the present case the shortage was less than two p...
Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT402TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Choksi Tubes Co.Ltd., is whether the duty of Excise is demandable from them in respect of goods shown short in RT-12 Returns? 2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture SS Seamless tubes/pipes, seamless carbon steel tubes and hot rolled bars and rods; that the pipes and tubes come into existence the movement they are formed and excluded; that such pipes and tubes are entered in RG-1 register by the Appellants; that as pipes and tubes in this condition are not marketable, they are further processed by undertaking drawing, plegiring, annealing, pickling and other processes; that as a result of these processes there is always a loss in the quantity of pipes and tubes to the extent of 2.5% to 3%; that consequently there would always be a difference between weight of pipes and tubes entered in RG-1 register and the weight of pipes/tubes after the processes undertaken; that the reconciliation of the...
Birla Vxl Limited Vs. Dlf Universal Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL153(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. An order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 01.03.2002 passed in A.A. No. 57 of 2002 whereby and whereunder an Arbitration Application filed by the petitioner herein purported to be under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act') was dismissed, is the subject matter of this writ petition. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. DLF Real Estate Developers, a partnership firm, comprising of Mahtur Cultivations Pvt. Ltd., Navsansar Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., Dreamland Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vipul Vaibhav Agro Development Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Rajinder Singh and DLF Universal Limited, was constituted. The said partnership was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. An agreement to sell dated 15.04.1995 was executed by and between the said DLF Real Estate Developers and the appellant herein whereby and whereunder the appellant herein agreed to purchase an office...
Shri Triloki Nath, S/O Late Shri Rai Singh Vs. the Delhi Power Company ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ89(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the issuance of order/memo dated 15.3.2000 issued by the respondent inter alia, stating respondent's disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer. Law is well-settled that the disciplinary authority can, if satisfied otherwise, disagree with the funding of the enquiry officer, however, in such eventuality the charged officer has to be given show cause notice so as to enable him to reply to the disciplinary authority.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Board of the respondent on 22.2.2002 itself made up its mind that the petitioner was to be removed from the service. It was contended that the petitioner's reply to the said memo dated 15.3.2000 was not even considered and the whole purpose of giving a show cause notice or reasonable opportunity was defeated as the decision to remove the petitioner from service had been taken by the Board before the said notice dated 15.3.2000 was issued. It was fu...
Supriya Diwan and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT426
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition impugning the orders passed by the SDM in respect of the land in question. The petitioners own case is that they are in occupation of different portions of the said land and are using it for residential and commercial purposes. Undisputedly the land is meant for agricultural use.2. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have a right in the land in question in pursuance to the various powers of attorney executed by the Bhumidar and thus they cannot be ejected from the land in question without following the due process as laiddown in the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954(hereinafter referred to as the Act) The attention of this court is invited to Sections 84 to 86A of the said Act in this behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even a person taking or retaining possession of the land other than in accordance witherthe provisions of law where the lan...
indocon Micro Engineers Vs. Pine Technology P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)7; 100(2002)DLT211
ORDERMahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 27.3.2001 by which he has dismissed the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner for prosecution of the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in default of the appearance of the complainant.2. Case of the petitioner is that the criminal complaint was fixed before the Court on 9.9.2000 for recording of the pre-summoning evidence when it was adjourned to 27.3.2001 but the Counsel has wrongly noted the date as 27.3.2002. Consequently, the complainant and the Counsel could not appear and the complaint was dismissed in default. Petition is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar Mittal, an employee of the complainant. The respondent has not been served as yet. Notice of the petition need not be issued to them.3. The criminal complaint was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of the power vested by Sec...
Satya Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT749; 2003(3)SLJ349(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of Rules for Civil Services Examination, 1996 (in short, 'CSE, 1996') falls for consideration in these writ petitions, which arise out of the judgments and orders dated 3.5.1999, 5.5.1999 and 8.12.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application Nos. 294 of 1998, 2624 of 1998 and 318 of 1998 respectively filed by the petitioners herein.2. The fact of the matter is being noticed from C.W.P. No. 3561 of 1999.The petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC). Indisputably, reservation was made for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category candidates in CSE, 1996. The petitioner along with others appeared at the said examination. His name in the select list was at Seriall No. 606. It is not in dispute that 737 candidates were recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (in short, 'the Commission') for appointment against the said vacant pos...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »