Delhi Court October 2003 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.
K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT40TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd., the issue involved is whether waste and scrap has arisen out of machinery in respect of which Modvat credit of the duty has been availed of by them.2. Shri S.P. Ojha, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants manufacture sugar and molasses; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has confirmed the demand of duty and penalty in respect of waste and scrap of machines holding that the said waste and scrap had arisen out of the machinery in respect of which Modvat credit had been taken by them; that this finding is based on the answer given by Shri R.C. Agarwal, Finance Manager of the appellant; that he was asked "have you sold waste and scrap arising out of plant and machinery during the last five years?" and he had answered "yes, scrap arising out of plant and machinery are sold by us from time to time". The learned Consultant emphasised that there is no indication either in the question or in the answer giv...
G.D. Misherdhatu Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT844TriDel
2. Applicants filed this application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed vide CESTAT, New Delhi Final Order dated 7-7-2003 for non-prosecution.3. The contention of the applicants is that the Counsel of the applicants fallen sick on the date fixed and one Member of the Firm attended the Court, by being a new man, he could not locate the Court by the time he reached the Court, the order had already been passed. In view of these circumstances, the Final order is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Adjourned to 10-12-2003....
Skyways Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC676
1. M/s. Skyways have filed this Appeal against the cancellation of their Customs House Agent's Licence by the Commissioner of Customs under the impugned Order No. 14/Adj/KRB-2003, dated 30-5-2003.2.1 Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant was granted CHA Licence in 1985; that he employed one Shri Ashok Kumar Kalra, A 'G' Card holder, to assist him in his work after obtaining prior approval of the Customs Authorities; that on 8-8-97, one Shipping Bill of M/s. Crafts Creations & Collections Inc. was filed for export of 5000 pieces of ladies garments valued at Rs. 12,44,950/- under claim of drawback amounting to Rs. 2,61,549.50 p. by the Appellant; that examination revealed that the goods were children garments made of sub-standard and Cheap material and it contained only 3923 pieces and the value of the goods was about l/10th of the value declared in the shipping bill; that Appellant's CHA licence was suspended vide Order dated 3-11-97; that on Appeal, th...
Shree Shyam Filaments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT512TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal is about admissibility of MODVAT credit on HSD. oil.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants M/s. Shyam Filaments Ltd. They have requested under their letter dated 14.10.03 for adjourning the matter on the ground that the same issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some other matters. The mere fact that the same issue is pending before the Supreme Court in Appeal filed by some other Appellants is not a sufficient cause to adjourn the hearing o if the Appeal filed by the present Appellants. We therefore, heard Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Department Representative, and perused the record. It has been submitted by the appellants in their memorandum of Appeal that they had taken the credit of duty paid on HSD Oil under Rule 57 B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 provided that credit is not admissible in respect of HSD Oil with retrospective effect; that...
Dee Pearls (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT356TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Customs has filed an affidavit dated 16-9-2003 in which he has tendered apology for the delay caused in implementation of the order dated 5-10-1999 passed by the Tribunal. He has also submitted that the action is being taken against the officers who were responsible for the delay.2. There shall be a direction to Central Board of Customs and Excise to oversee the action proposed against the erring officials. The Commissioner will report as to the progress of the action. Post on 13-2-2004....
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)455; 107(2003)DLT603; 2004(2)SLJ308(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule has already been issued in the writ petition on 5th December, 1995. The matter is taken up today for final hearing. 2. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 2nd June, 1995(Annexure P-1 at Pages 34-36 of the petition), refusing to grant the prayer made by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte award dated 9th May, 1994(impugned in the present writ petition as Annexure P-2) on the ground that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with such an application as it had become functus officio within 30 days of the date of the award. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Sood Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court II : (2001)ILLJ1113SC while reversing the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, holding that the industrial adjudicator had become infructuous after 30 days of the making of the award held as follows:-'If this be the position in law, both the High Court and the Tribunal (sic Labour Court) fell into an error in stating that ...
inderjit Grover Vs. Indrawati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)267; 108(2003)DLT16
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.S.A. 40 of 2003 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2003 of the Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 10 of 2000 whereby the learned Judge has set aside the judgment of the trial court with directions to the defendants-respondent to file amended written statement before the trial court; thereafter fresh issues be framed and, after giving opportunity of leading evidence, to decide the suit afresh.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the First Appellate Court, are as under :'A suit for recovery of possession was filed by the predecessor of the respondents on the ground that Shri Hira lal Verma, father of Shri Prem Lal (original defendant) was a tenant of the suit premises bearing No. 6422-23, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi and that his tenancy was terminated during his life time. Said Shri Hira lal Verma died on 4.4.1972. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had become liable to vacate the premises as he did not become a ...
N.D.M.C. Vs. Vijay Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ607Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up to-day for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the Award dated October 7, 1999, passed by the Labour Court directing the reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favor of the workman/respondent No. 1 herein on account of the Labour Court recording a finding that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was not complied with as more than 240 days service had been put in by the respondent No. 1.4. In so far as the challenge to the finding on Section 25-F of the Act which was said to be violated by non-compliance thereof, para 4 of the written statement clearly states that the respondent No. 1 worked from August 1985 to November 1988 with breaks in service but the breaks in service were not specified. Since breaks in service were either specified or deposed to by the petitioner this pleading thereforee, does not deny the averm...
Annapoorna Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT683; [2005]278ITR351(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, challenged order dated 15.12.1986 passed by the Appropriate Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 269UD of Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Although the petitioner has also challenged virus of some Income-tax Rules as well as provisions of Income-tax Act, that challenge was not pressed before us and the challenge was confined to the validity of the aforesaid order only.2. One M/s. Ramesh Apartments (Delhi) Private Ltd. vide agreement 7.3.1986 agreed to sell the petitioner residential apartment bearing Private No. 4 on the first floor in Block 'A' of 9, Prithvi Road, New Delhi-110 001. Total consideration fixed was Rs. 11,36,000/- which payment was made by the petitioner to the aforesaid seller on the date of execution of the agreement. Possession was also handed over on the same day and the petitioner became entitled to use and occupy the said apartment without any restriction as...
P.L. Sharma Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT183; 2004(74)DRJ220; 2004(3)SLJ316(Delhi)
Madan D. Lokur, J.1. The appellant, who appears in person, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2001 whereby his writ petition, being CW No. 2632 of 2001 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The appellant had retired from service as a Reader in the University and was subsequently re-employed. According to him, he was granted an extension in service, but the learned Single Judge held that his was a case of re-employment in service. This issue was argued at length before a Division Bench and by an order dated 20th May, 2002, no infirmity was found in the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard. This issue, thereforee, stands concluded against the appellant3. Another issue raised by the appellant was that with effect from 1st January, 1996 ho was entitled to the benefit of the recommend arums of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (for short the 5th CPC) in respect of the fixation of his salary. It was additionally contended (as is apparent from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »