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.
Super Syncotex (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT164TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 8-4-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the availability of the benefit of Notification, No. 6/2000 to the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the CETA. A show cause notice was issued for having filed the classification declaration of the yarn under Chapter 5205.11 and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2000 for payment of duty @ BED 8%, instead of classifying it under Chapter 56.06. They contested the classification of their goods and also the denial of benefit of that notification, in their reply to the show cause notice.The adjudicating authority did not accept their plea and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,05,329/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-under Rule 173Q. That order of the adjudicating authority had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The learned Counsel has contended that...
Shiva Essential Oils and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT121TriDel
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and essential oils. A fire accident took place in their factory on 31.12.91 and due to the fire certain raw materials and finished goods got destroyed. The appellants filed application for remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed in fire under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority rejected the application on the ground that the cause of destruction of goods was neither natural nor unavoidable. The contention of the appellant is that their factory was not even insured, they immediately informed the jurisdictional Supdt. Regarding incident of fire and after verification of the goods, they filed a detailed remission application. The appellants relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Vs. Welspun Terri Towels reported in 2002-Taxindiaonline-35-CESTAT-MUM and the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Hira Lal Commission Agents Vs. CCE reported in 200...
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)425; 108(2003)DLT314; (2004)ILLJ603Del; 2004(3)SLJ428(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. During the final hearing of the petition, the parties agreed that the facts stated in the interim order dated 4th August 2003 may be made the factual basis for the present judgment. On behalf of Union of India it is stated that the statement of facts in the interim order is correct except to the extent that the order observes that the decision to abolish was not taken by the majority of the members and in respect of the visits of Shri Shah and Shri Sundaresan to the Delhi Airport. This writ petition challenges the order dated 20th July, 1999 of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the CACLB) and the consequent order dated 18th April, 2002 of the Government of India declining to abolish the contract labour system at domestic and international airports qua the trolley retrievers. This writ petition is by the 115 trolley retrievers and 12 supervisors of the domestic and international airports at Delhi where some of the petitioners have...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)507; AIR2004Delhi191; 108(2003)DLT217
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner company was declared the highest bidder for a plot of land bearing No. 1, Patparganj Transport Centre, New Delhi measuring about 5 acres for a consideration of Rs. 65,76,375/- on 29.8.1983. On the petitioner depositing the full consideration, the possession of the plot was handed over on 1.10.1984. However, the perpetual lease deed was only executed subsequently on 7.10.1988. The prescribed user of the plot is automobile service-cum-training centre. 2. The plan for the construction on the plot was sanctioned on 29.8.1985 and it is stated that the petitioner started construction in the very next month and carried out construction of 7135.75 sq. mtrs. The C and D forms were issued in October, 1988 and the Occupancy Certificate was applied on 25.8.1989 but issued on 9.4.1990. The property is stated to be used for the prescribed user. In terms of the Master Plan for Delhi, automobile services fall under the Annexure III dealing with classification of...
V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)166; [2005]123CompCas433(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT159
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal calls for decisions on vital important questions, which have been raised by the parties hereto which are being dealt with and decided giving reasons for the the decisions.2. The respondent No. 2 company was incorporated on 14.2.1977 as a public company limited by shares. A show cause notice dated 16.3.2000 was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Companies under Section 211 of the Companies Act to the respondent No. 2 and its Managing Director consequent on inspection made under Section 209(A) of the Companies Act. The said show cause notice is a part of the documents which are filed. The relevant portion of the said show cause is extracted hereunder:'Whereas during the courses of Inspection it was observed that during the financial year 1994-95 to 1997-98 the schedule of Fixed Assets includes land worth Rs. 21 crore. The company has taken this land from NDMC on license and the land is not registered in the name of the Company. (The Company p...
Khub Ram Vs. Tulsi Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ67; (2004)137PLR19
Mukul Mudgal, J. CM 7714/2003The application is allowed. The delay in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition is condoned.The application stands disposed of.CM 7713/2003Mr. Tandon who appears for the respondent does not object to the restoration of the writ petition. Accordingly the application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original position.The application stands disposed of.CW 7035/20011. This writ petition challenges the award rendered by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, who on finding that the deceased Mr. Mohinder Singh Negi was killed during the course of his employment granted compensation by his award and held the petitioner liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,05,950/-. This award is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the proceedings proceeded ex-parte and the petitioner was never served. In fact, this is a ground on which learned Single Judge issued notice on 19th December, 2001. The relevant portion of the award...
Alwar Lamps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC130
1. The appellants are manufacturers of auto bulbs. These fall under sub-heading No. 8539 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed the classification under sub-heading No. 8539.10 whereas the department claimed classification under sub-heading No. 8539.90 and confirmed the demand of duty for Rs. 33,20,015. The appellants have sold the said bulbs in bulk to original equipment manufacturers of automobiles at the price of Rs. 8 per bulb. The sub-heading No. 8539.10 is applicable to "vacuum and gas filled bulbs of retail sale price not exceeding Rs. 20 per bulb. The dispute is that since the said bulbs have been sold in bulk and not in retail, the sub-heading No. 8539.10 is not applicable and hence the duty as demanded is leviable. The appellants plead that, they have a strong prima facie case on merit in their favour and hence they may be granted total waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as demanded in the impugned order.3. We have perused the order of the Ld. Commission...
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC131
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the demand of duty of Rs. 12,85,644.70 confirmed against them by the Commissioner and also against the penalty of equivalent amount and interest in respect of iron and steel scrap.2. The allegation is that they have removed iron and steel scrap in contravention of rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of the Act. Show cause notice also seeks to recover duty from the appellants on furnace oil and used refractory bricks. But the demand on these was dropped. The present proceeding relates to the demand of duty on iron and steel scrap.3. The appellants are manufacturer of cement and steel scrap has arisen, not while manufacturing the cement but the said iron and steel scrap arose while using the duty paid iron and steel material for construction work in their factory. It has been pleaded that no credit under the Modvat Scheme was taken in respect of the duty paid on iron and steel material brought into the factory for const...
Smt. Parminder Kaur Khurmi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)637; 108(2003)DLT175
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. With the consent of parties the matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. The petitioners are seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to issue sale permission in favor of the petitioner no.1 in respect of the property bearing No.J-7, B.K. Dutt Colony, New Delhi-110003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property') 3. This property which is a lease-hold property was initially owned by one Mr Chunni Lal Nepali. Upon his demise, it came to be owned by his son Shri Bal Krishan Nepali, who is respondent no.2 herein. Despite service, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. 4. On 17.07.1989, an agreement to sell was entered into by and between the said Shri Bal Krishan Nepali and the petitioner No.1's husband (Sh. H.S. Khurmi). On 03.10.1989, other documents, such as Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney and Will, etc. were executed. Since this was a lease-hold property, before the sale coul...
Smt. Krishna Prakash and anr. Vs. Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)56; AIR2004Delhi105; 108(2003)DLT82; 2003(71)DRJ770
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. By a judgment and decree dated 5th January, 1996, the suit of the applicant-respondent, for ejectment and mesne profits, was decreed by the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, non applicants/defendants filed an appeal being RFA No.181/96 before this Court on 6th April, 1996. On an application for stay of execution of the decree, by an order dated 3rd October, 1996, partial relief was granted and the execution of the decree, in so far as it related to recovery of possession, was stayed. The prayer for stay of execution of decree for mesne profits was, however, declined. The appeal was finally dismissed on 10th August, 2001.2. Now, review of the judgment in appeal is being sought by the applicant-respondent on the ground that the arguments advanced in relation to the rate of mesne profits for the period there was a stay of recovery of possession, which constituted part of written submissions, have gone unnoticed and as...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »