Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Balajee Hi-tech Rolling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC345
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Balajee Hi-Tech Rolling Pvt.Ltd. and M/s. Patwari Udyog, the common issue involved is whether CENVAT Credit @ 12% of Invoice prices is available to them under Notification No. 29/2000-CE (N.T.) dated 31.3.2000.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants manufacture M.S. Bars and rods of non-alloy steel and were discharging duty liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act up to 31.3.2000; that with effect from 1.4.2000, duty liability was required to be discharged on ad valorem basis under Section 3 of the Act; that Notification No. 29/2000 (NT) provides that deemed credit equivalent to 12% of the value of the goods received as inputs as per the invoices would be allowed; that the Central Board of Excise & Customs has also, under Circular No. 522/2000 dated 31.3.2000, clarified that inputs lying in stock as on 31st March, 2000 would qualify for MODVAT Credit in the hands of the assessee on and from 1st A...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Boc India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT254TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Modvat credit is to be disallowed in respect of gases lost during production.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. In fact the notice issued to them for hearing has been returned back by the Postal authorities with the remarks 'left'. I therefore, heard Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that while checking the monthly RT 12 returns of M/s. BOC Ltd., it was found that they were debiting some quantity of gases in their RG 23A, Part I register with the remark that gases lost during production. The Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original Nos. 113-119/99 dated 31-5-99, disallowed the Modvat credit in respect of the quantity lost and imposed penalty; that the Commissioner (Appeals) however, under the impugned Order has allowed their Appeal holding that manufacturing process and na...
Cce Vs. Shaini Hair Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT305TriDel
1. The dispute is about the classification of Saini herbal Oil.Jurisidcational Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise held the item to be classifiable under Chapter Hading NO. 3003.20 Revenue contested this classification before Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh canvassing alternate classification under heading No. 3305.99. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the classification order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and rejected the appeal. The Revenue persists with its claim of classification in the present appeal also. Saini Harbal Oil is an ayurvedic medicine made as per Specifications mentioned in texts of Ayurveda. The oil is effctive for all ages of men, woman & children and is safe for use.Amalaki (Emblion Officlnulls) : 6 gmsShikakai (Acacia Conclaa) : 6 gms.Rasaut (Berbarin Asiatica Ext.) : 2 gms.Camphor (Cinnamon Camphora) : 2 gms. INDICATION : Application of oil prevents excessive falling of hair, stimulates hair growth, cures dandru...
WavIn India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT269TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Wavin India Ltd., is whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the refund of Customs duty claimed by them.2.1 Shri Lajja Ram, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had placed order for the purchase of 5,000 M.T. of PVC Suspension Grade K65-67 with M/s. Fina Chem International Company; that they filed Bill of Entry with the Kandla Customs on 8-8-1985; that the vessel Ocean Star had encountered rough and moisturous weather during voyage and the cargo of PVC resin was damaged; that after exchange of correspondence, Deputy Collector, Customs, under Order-in-Original No. KDL/06/DC/88, dated 28-1-88 ordered abatement of duty on account of damage of the goods by reducing the value of the goods to the extent of 30%; that as a consequence of the said Order, the Appellants preferred a refund claim of Rs. 45,38,280.72 on 18-3-1988. The learned Advocate also mentioned that Collector (Appeals), under Order-in-Appeal No. 3161...
Ambuja Cement Rajasthan Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC484
1. These appeals are against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denying to the appellants Modvat credit on explosives used at off factory mines for producing limestone. The relevant periods, in respect of which the credits have been denied to the appellants are Sept. 2001 to Jan. 2002, April to Nov. 2000 and July to November 2001 respectively in Appeals No. 871, 896 and 2075.2. Examined the records and heard both the sides. Arguing for the appellants in Appeal No. 896/2003, the learned Counsel submits that the issue involved in the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Bench in the cases of Commissioner v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., 2002 (147) ELT 877 and Commr. v. Birla Corporation Ltd., 2002 (146) ELT 215, This submission is not contested. In the cited cases, one of the issues considered by this Bench was whether the explosives used by the respondents for mining limestone at sites outside their cement factory were eligible inputs for Modvat purpose. In each of ...
Deepak Sudhan Bahuguna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ70CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 4.4.2003 extending the period of probation for a period of six months w.e.f. 28.10.2002 as well as order dated 24.7.2003, wherein, on expiry of extended period assessed applicant not fit to continue on the post of Master (English) applicant was reverted back to the substantive post of Assistant Master. Quashing of the aforesaid has been sought with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant was appointed as Assistant Master on 1.7.94 at Military School Chail. In view of the notification for the post of Master (English) which was to be processed through UPSC applicant being fully eligible as per the recruitment rules notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the post of Master applied for the post and on interview and other formalities applicant was offered the post of Master (English) Group 'B' post at Rashtriya Indian Military College (IRMS) vide letter dated 29.9.2000. The post was permanent but the initial appointment was...
Damayanti Builders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR530(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT694; 2004(72)DRJ130; 2004(1)RAJ300
S.K. Mahajan, J.CM No. 1265/20021. This application is filed by the appellant for condensation of 14 months delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the application of the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award of the Arbitrator was allowed and the award was set aside. It is contended in the application that the appellant was not served with the notice of the application of the respondent and he was also not aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Additional District Judge. It is submitted that immediately on coming to know of the order having been passed by the learned Additional District Judge steps were taken to file appeal in this Court and there was thus sufficient cause for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. Reply to the application is filed by the respondent and the averments made in the application are denied. I may have closely scruntinised, the applicati...
Om Parkash Goel Vs. Jai Prakash Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)319; 108(2003)DLT710; 2004(72)DRJ515
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is filed with a prayer that Probate Case No. 400A/ 2001 pending in District Court be transferred to the High Court and be heard along with Probate Case No. 10/1987. 2. The brief facts of the case as given in the petition under Section 24, CPC are as under: '2. The father of the petitioner and respondents 1, 7 and 8 Sh. Jugal Kishore s/o Sh. Shiv Dayal died on 28.4.1986 at the age of 85 years. Before his death, he is alleged to have made an unregistered Will on 27.8.1983. By virtue of this alleged Will, he had given virtually all his alleged movable and immovable property to his second son respondent No. 1 and his two sons and in effect excluding all his other sons and daughters. He also named respondent No. 1 as the executor of the Will. A copy of the Will is annexed hereto to as Annexure P1. 3. The mother of the petitioner and respondents 1, 7 and 8 Smt. Muthari Devi w/o Sh. Jugal Kishore died on 3.3.1989 at the age of 85 years. Before her death, she i...
Smt. Sundri Devi Vs. D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)317; 108(2003)DLT598; 2004(72)DRJ226
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.CM.No.13213/2003Allowed subject to all just exceptions.CW.No.7932/20031. The petitioner is an occupant of premises bearing No. MPL 15-16, General Market, Paharganj, New Delhi measuring 93 sq. yards which is being used for commercial purposes. The said property admittedly is a government property. A notice dated 12.12.2001 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner was required to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not made against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was, inter alia, an unauthorised occupant. Pursuant to the said notice under Section 4 of the said Act, one Shri Amarjit Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Estate Officer on 28.02.2002 and requested for time to file objections. Thereafter, on 14.03.2002 and 15.07.2002 the said Shri Amarjit Singh entered appearance before the Estate Officer on behal...
Ajay Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)273; 108(2003)DLT742; 2004(72)DRJ202; 2004(1)JCC25
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2003 and order on sentence dated 15.2.2003 whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof to further undergo RI for two months.2. Briefly stated facts leading to this appeal are that on intervening night of 18/19 of February 1998 Smt. Shashi Bala along with her daughter Ginni, aged about 8 years, approached PP Vijay Vihar, P.S Mangol Puri where SI Rajesh Rathi, i.e in this case, recorded her statement. In her statement Shashi Bala told the Police that on 18.2.98 at about 9.00 pm when she was ironing clothes in her house her minor daughter Ginni, aged about 8 years went out of the house to play. When she did not return for quite sometime she sent her son Sunny to trace the girl. Sunny come back home at 9.30 pm and told his mother that Ginni was not visible in the neighborhood. Thereupon, complainant Shashi Bala herself ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »