Delhi Court November 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.
G.P. Jaiswal, Rakesh Mishra and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC154
1. The three appeals filed by the appelants viz. Shri G.P. Jaiswal (CH No. 13/86), Shri Rakesh Srivastava, Sr. Supdt. of Central Excise and Shri Rakesh Mishra and directed against a common order-in-original No.4/COMM/LKO/2002 Dated 29.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow. In the said order, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each on Shri G.P. Jaiswal and Shri Rakesh Srivastava and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. In the impugned order, the Commissioner ordered confiscation of 57,000 pairs of PVC soles which were cleared for export by M/s Yash Exports and the penalty imposed ont the three appellants was with reference to the violations of customs law relating to the said exports under the DEPB Scheme. It was alleged that the exporter indulged in massive overvaluation of the export goods and the appellants through their actions facilitated the said export so as to enable the exporter to fraudulently c...
Starwire (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC5
1. M/s. Starwire (India) Ltd. have filed this Appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 485/2002 dated 8.4.2002 by which Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty of Excise and penalty against them.2. Shri K.L. Handa, learned Consultant mentioned that the Appellants manufacture iron and steel ingots/flats/bars/rods, etc. C.I. Ingot moulds, Bullet Proof jackets and parts thereof; that after visit of their factory premises by the Central Excise officers on 26.9.1997, a show cause notice dated 21.4.1998 was issued for demanding duty on samples of excisable goods, copper scrap, lead scrap and gun metal scrap, aluminium scrap, iron & Steel scrap and High Aluminium fire clay Grog and Chrom Magnesite Grog (HAFC Grog) on the ground that these goods had been removed without payment of duty; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 01/2002 dated 27.4.2002 demanded duty and imposed penalty besides demanding interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise ...
Cce Vs. Mamta and Co. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC219
1. These are 17 appeals, filed by the Revenue arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 52 to 68/AKG/PCK/2003 dated 28.2.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication orders in respect of respondents No. 1 to 15 and has set aside the penalty imposed on respondents No. 16 to 17.2. Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that all the respondents purchase stainless steel flats on payment of duty, which are cut into small pieces and, thereafter, are hot rolled in the form of patta/patties; that the respondents/ thereafter, cut out circles, which are used within the factory for the manufacture of utensils; that some quantity of circles is also being sold in the open market; that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty in respect of the circles used captively in the manufacture of utensils and imposed penalties. On appeals, filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), has set aside the demand of duty in respect of the respondents at Sl No. 1 t...
Jaybee Lamination Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC562
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty of Rs. 10,02,931/- under Rule 8 of the Customs (Imports of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1996, after denying the benefit of Notification No. 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999 and also imposed penalty of equal amount on them.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the benefit of the above said notification has been wrongly denied on the ground that the inputs imported at concessional rate of duty under the said notification had been used in excess of the ratio specified under the Exim Policy of the year 1997-2002 in the manufacture of the final products, as the ratio mentioned under the said Exim Policy could not be made applicable to the case of the appellants. He has also contended that there is no allegation of clandestine removal of the imported inputs as such or of the final products manufactured ou...
India Trade Promotlon Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC20
1. M/s. India Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO) has been registered as a charitable organization under Section 25 of the Companies Act 1956. The main objectives of this organization as enumerated in Memorandum of Association are as under:- To promote, organize and participate in industrial trade and other fairs and exhibitions show-rooms and depots in India and abroad and to take all measures Incidental thereto for boosting up country's trade.To publicize in India and abroad International Trade Fairs and Exhibitions to be held in India and invite the foreign participants to participate in them.To organize and undertake trade in commodities connected with or relating to such fairs, exhibitions show-rooms and depots in India and abroad and to undertake the purchase, sale, storing and transport of such commodities in India or anywhere else in the world.To undertake promotion of exports and to explore new markets for traditional items of export and develop exports of new items with a vi...
Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc (Air-cargo)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC503
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original vide which the Commissioner had ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty as detailed therein on them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. This appellants obtained EPCG licence on 18.7.1995 by declaring that they would import capital goods for production and export of 'Processed data on Reservation'. They also declared the address of their factory where the capital goods would be installed. The description of the goods to be exported by them was declared as 'software'. They were allowed concessional rate of duty when they filed a bill of entry dated 4.11.1995 for the clearance of the goods. After the export, they were issued even a letter by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner certifying that the imported goods had been installed in their factory.3. From the record, we find that the learned Commissioner has ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option to get the same rede...
Sh. Rakesh Saini and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ2148; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)399; AIR2004Delhi107; 2004(72)DRJ268
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Smt. Roshni Devi, wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellants No. 2 and 3 died along with three others in a train accident occurred on 18th December, 1995 at Azadpur Railway Station alleging that it was due to the negligence of respondent Northern Railway. Appellant first approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi for compensation. However, the said claim was dismissed on the ground that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim and remedy for the appellants was to file civil proceedings. In these circumstances, appellants filed civil Suit No. 626/2001 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lacs under tortuous liability. This suit has been dismissed by judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. Present appeal is preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree.2. Version of the appellants as to the circumstances under which accident took place on 18t...
S.C. Mehta and ors. Vs. P.K. Wadhwa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)110; AIR2004Delhi132; 108(2003)DLT90; 2003(71)DRJ773
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) has been moved by the Objector M/s Endure Capital Private Limited for review of the orders dated 7th January, 2003 passed by this Court. The application is opposed by the Decree Holder.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the Decree Holder, in execution of a money decree against the judgment Debtor, has obtained attachment of the second floor of property No.A-190, Inder Puri, New Delhi. The objector filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code pleading that it is the owner of the said property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 7.9.1995 and as such, the said flat is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree against the judgment Debtor. According to the objector, the judgment Debtor is merely a lessee of the said flat and has no right, title or int...
Smt. Rajesh Kumari Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT680; 2004(72)DRJ50
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. The petitioner bid at an auction held on 9.2.2000 for a shop which was then advertised as having an area of 13.71 sq. metres. The petitioner's bid of Rs. 5,32,000/- was the highest and was accepted. He deposited 1/3rd of the bid amount on 9.2.2000 itself with the respondent. A demand letter was issued to the petitioner subsequently on 6.3.2000 for the balance amount. In the demand letter the area shown was the same i.e. 13.71 sq. metres. However, the petitioner when he inspected the shop in question found that in point of fact it was 17.00 sq. metres in area. According to the petitioner there was some confusion in his mind as to whether he would be asked to pay only the amount that was mentioned in the demand letter or he would be asked to pay an additional amount for the additional area that was there on site. The petitioner, however, did not pay any amount within ...
Smt. Ira Juneja and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3664; 2004(72)DRJ207
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 308/2001 under section 406, 420, 120B, IPC, P.S. Ashok Vihar, Delhi.2. Briefly stated facts leading to this petition are that on 26.2.97 a partnership agreement was entered into between the petitioner Smt. Ira Juneja and respondent No. 2, Ajay Fotedar to carry on the business of manufacturing and sale/ export/ import of leather goods or garments under the name & style of M/s Samsaur Impex. The petitioner already had some export orders worth Rs.6 lac for export of leather goods to USA. Her initial contribution to the partnership was in the form of some machinery valuing about Rs. 48,000/-. Financial contribution mainly came from the side of respondent No. 2, Ajay Fotedar, the other partner of the firm. The two partners were to share profit and losses equally. It appears that partnership business could not run smoothly. In October 1999,...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »