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.
Rockland Leasing Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ348
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant in both the appeals is Rockland Leasing Ltd. against whom Company Petition 93/2001 was filed by Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of Section 45-DC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (in short, the Act) for winding up the affairs of the appellant company. In another petition filed by certain persons under Section 45QA of the Act before the Company Law Board (CLB, for short). The CLB passed order dated 26.6.98 giving certain directions for repayment of deposits to the said applicants/depositors. The appellant filed Co. A. 4-B/98 under the provisions of Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against said order dated 26.6.1998 passed by the CLB. Company Petition 93/2001 as well as Co. A. 4-b/98 were heard together by the learned company judge and a common judgment dated 5.12.2001 has been given. In the said judgment leaned single Judge has allowed CP 93/2001 ordering winding up of the appellant company and dismissed CoA. 4-B/98 of the appellant.2...
K.F. Belting Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT432TriDel
1. Applicant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No.74/94-C.E. was denied to the appellant.3. The contention of the Appellant is that the present proceedings are in relation to the approval of their classification list under the Adjudicating Authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 74/94.Subsequently the Revenue raised the demand in pursuance of the adjudication Order and the same was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and on Appeal filed by the Appellant, the demand was set aside by the Commissioner.4. The contention of the Appellant is that Notification NO. 74/94 C.E.dated 28-3-94 exempts all the rubber Products classifiable under 4405.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Batteries Ltd. v.CCE 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods manufactured by the Appellant at intermediate stage is of irregular...
Hrs Fibres (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT363TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 19-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which duty demand of Rs. 24,49,234.17 with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and interest payable thereon under Section 11AB had been confirmed/imposed on appellants No. 1, M/s. HRS Fibres (P) Ltd., and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each had been imposed on other appellants. The appellants No. 1 is a private limited company (in short referred to as 'Company') engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. On scrutiny of the record of the company, it revealed that they were clearing cotton yarn without payment of duty in the guise of plain reel hanks. They were supplying the yarn to the other appellants. The company was thus availing the duty benefit, by mis-description of the goods in the invoices, which were exempt from payment of Central Excise Duty under Notification No.5/98, dated 2-6-1998. They were also c...
Dalmia Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT184TriDel
1. The Revenue has sought stay of the Final Order No. 222/89, dated 6-6-89 vide which the appeal of the Respondents was allowed and the Revenue was directed to refund the duty amount to them in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 2. Earlier the stay application of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that they had already moved a reference application before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 14-9-2000 had directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law for its opinion. But the Hon'ble High Court has now again issued directions to the Tribunal to hear the stay application on merits.4. The learned Counsel for the Revenue, has contended that since reference on a question of law involved in the case is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the operation of the Final Order against which that reference has been made, deserves to be stayed as payment of huge amount by...
Emmtex Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT170TriDel
1. The above captioned four appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common order-in-original dated 23-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Adj.) vide which he had imposed penalties under Rule 209A of the Rules on the appellants as detailed therein.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under - The company (Appellant No. 1) was engaged in manufacture of tex-turised and drawn/twisted polyester yarn. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were the Directors while Appellants No. 4 was the Manager of the company at the relevant time. The company allegedly received 3,82,962 kgs. of polyester yarn (POY) from M/s. HPL Company who clandestinely removed the same from its factory premises without payment of duty, during the period April, 1994 to June, 1995. On receipt of that yarn, the appellants manufactured texturised and drawn/twisted polyester yarn out of that and then clandestinely removed the said yarn without making entry in the statutory record and without pay...
Indian Refrigeration Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC881
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30.7.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue is of interest under Section 11-AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short Act).2. Shri Harishankar, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and he submitted that by virtue of show cause notice dated 5.3.90, a demand of Rs. 6,10,788.87 P has been raised on the ground that the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 had been wrongly availed from 1.4.86 to 30.6.88; that by order in original dated 2.5.91, the Commissioner has confirmed the entire demand; that vide order dated 9.7.92, the Delhi High Court modified the terms of stay to furnishing of bank guarantee for Rs. 7,10,788.87P and the requisite bank guarantee was furnished on 30.7.92, which was thereafter renewed from time to time; that vide final order dated 11.5.2000, the Tribunal allowed Appeal No. 4500/91 in part confirming the demand for the period prior to 31.3...
Rajinder Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC476
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 3.11.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. By the impugned order, the Collector has confiscated 78.324 MTs of CRF Sections (U & S) under Rule 173Q and allowed redemption of the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of confiscation; confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 1,33,113.30 P(sic)cn 113.14 MT of CRF Sections (D.C.T.H.Z & A Variety) under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with Section 1 A(1) proviso of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant under Rule 173-Q which is under challenge in this appeal.2. The appellants have also filed a Misc application dated 14.9.2001 requesting permission to raise additional grounds of appeal as under: "One of the grounds agitated before the Collector in the reply to the show cause notice is that the show cause notice has not even been signed by the Collector and hence invalid and unsustainable. The show ca...
Rodhee, Vs. Govt. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ5Del
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Considerable interest has been generated in these petitions since Counsel for the parties have contended that the controversy is not covered by any directly applicable precedent. The legal issue which has arisen centres around the interpretation of Section 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The factual matrix, as averred by the Petitioner/Workman, is that the Indian Express Union had raised Industrial Dispute No. 101/1987 and 148/1987 regarding several issues such as mil allowance etc. which were pending before the Industrial Tribunal No. I, Delhi. In January/February 1992, the Petitioners' names were allegedly transferred from the 'Pucca' to the 'Kucha' Registers maintained by the Respondents in their Newsprint Department, thereby altering the service relationship that had existed during the previous five/six years. The petitioners lodged their protest in terms of the letter dated 5.5.1992 which failed to bring ab...
international Security and Intelligence Agency Limited Vs. Municipal C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR476(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT443; 2003(66)DRJ72
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is against an order passed on 25.9.2001 dismissing the appellants application seeking review of the earlier order dated 17.1.2001 passed by learned Single Judge by which award of the arbitrator was made rule of the court. Challenge in this appeal is also to the order dated 17.1.2001 by which learned Single Judge did not pass any order for grant of interest from the date of decree till payment on the principal amount awarded.2. Relevant facts necessary for decision of the appeal are that the arbitrator on 17.5.1996 entered upon reference and on 14.3.1997 made his award. An application was filed on 18.3.1998 by the appellant under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying to make the award dated 14.3.1997 rule of the court in terms of the award and decree be drawn with future interest @ 16% p.a. from the date of decree till date of realisation. On award being filed objections were filed by t...
JaIn Sabha Lodhi Colony, Digamber JaIn Mandir Vs. Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT227
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule. 2. This writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 28.3.1997 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessing the premises on which a Jain Temple was being constructed. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was not served on the correct address. He has also contended that the temple was not ready, thereforee, the same could not have been assessed from 1993 as has been sought to be done pursuant to the notice issued under Section 126 of the DMC Act. It was further contended that it was brought to the notice of the respondent that the temple was still under construction and balance-sheet up to 1993-94 starting from 1.3.1994 till 1995-96 was filed before the respondent. Another argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the temple land was allotted to the petitioner society and the respondent could have assessed on the purchase price after deduct...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »