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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nachhatar Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC78; 2004IAD(Delhi)553A; 108(2003)DLT669A
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimants had filed appeal for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurance company had filed appeal on the ground that its liability was limited to the extent to Rs. 50, 000/-These appeals came up for hearing on 14.11.2002, when no one was present on behalf of the insurance company, the Court decided both the appeals in the absence of the counsel for the insurance company. While compensation in favor of the claimants was enhanced and the appeal of the claimants being FAO NO. 113/1999 was allowed, the appeal of the insurance company was dismissed in default. Subsequently, applications were filed for restoration of the appeal and for condensation of delay in filing the application for restoration. By order dated 14.10.2003, the appeal was restored and the matter was fixed for hearing today.2. The only point taken in the appeal by the insurance company is that under the policy of insurance its liability ...
Dr. Harbhajan Singh Awla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)337; AIR2004Delhi172; 108(2003)DLT628; 2004(72)DRJ146
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. By consent of all the learned counsel for the parties, final arguments have been addressed on the Petition, which shall be finally disposed of. The question which arises is whether the nomination of the fourth (4th) Respondent as a Director of the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) carried out by the Central Government is proper and legal, and is the consequence of a bona fide exercise of the discretion vested in the Central Government.3. The Order that has been impugned before me is cryptic and reads thus:-'No. 6-11/2003-SGGovernment of IndiaMinistry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Deptt. of Food & Public DistributionKrishi Bhawan, New Delhi, Dated June 11, 2003In pursuance of Sub section (3) of Section 7 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (W.C. Act, 1962) the Central Government hereby nominate Shri Suresh Niranjan Bhaiyaji as Director of the Board of Central Warehousing corporation (CWC) with effect from the date he joins in place...
Meenu Abrol (Mrs.) Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)225; 108(2003)DLT709
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. Petitioner, by this petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 361/2003 under Sections 420/406/506/34, IPC, P.S. H. Nizamuddin. 2. Prosecution allegations, in brief, are that petitioner was the Director of the Dream Network Marketing Private Ltd. This company was not doing any particular business. The modus of the company was that they issued advertisements inviting members. Each member, at the time of enrolment was required to pay Rs. 6,000/-. On becoming a member of the company they were assigned the duty of enrolling three more members on the same term for becoming entitled to commission @ Rs. 1,200/-. On enrolment of second set of three new members (again on the same terms), the member became entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as commission and so on.3. Learned APP for the State argued that under this scheme the petitioners cheated large number of people to the tune of Rs. 1.0 crore. Their custodial interrogation is required to unearth ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paper Products Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: [2004]271ITR472(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal, by the Revenue, under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated January 2, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 3105/Delhi of 2002 in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. According to the Revenue, the order involves the following substantial questions of law :'(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition under the head depreciation due to foreign exchange rates fluctuation on the notional basis and not on actual payment ?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the depreciation has to be allowed on addition in plant and machinery which represents notional increase in liability of foreign currency loan at the closure of the accounting period ?'2. Since from the format of the questions, it is evident that the issu...
Vardhman Special Steels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT263TriDel
1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made by the appellants to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original disallowing the Modvat credit of the disputed amount to the appellants on the capital goods, detailed therein.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the Modvat credit has been wrongly disallowed to the appellants on the capital goods in question as the same were covered by the provisions of Rule 57Q and the table appended to the said rule.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR, has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both sides and gone through the impugned order. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the capital goods on which the Modvat credit has been disallowed of Rs. 38,947/- are Interior Compensating Lead Wire, Potassium Thermocouple tips, Celon Al Censor Contact Block, Housing for Lance, Male Connector. All these goods being classifiable under Heading 90.33 of the CETA stan...
Baljit Singh Kochar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT430TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 24th October, 2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner raising duty demand of Rs. 1,36,500/- from them.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the DEPB licences under which the goods were imported, were purchased by the appellants from the market and there is no evidence on the record to prove that the same were false/forged one and that the copy of the letter of the DGFT declaring the licences fake/forged, and on the basis of which the duty demand has been raised, was never supplied to the appellants. There is nothing on the record to prove that the licences were fake/forged.Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows tha...
Nina Chaka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC249
1. The appellants are contesting the allegation of undervaluation levelled against them by the customs authorities in respect of import of nylon/polyester cloth with PVC backing imported by them. The import was effected through 10 Bills of Entry (B/Es), from ICD Tughlakabad Delhi. The goods were of Taiwan origin and the bills were raised by M/s. Kabul Gulf Trading LLC Dubai, UAE.2.1 In respect of Bill of Entry No. 103522, dated 9-4-96 the Customs authorities stumbled upon a Letter of Credit (L/C) established by the said trading company in favour of M/s. China Plastic Company, Taiwan, for US $ 55,570 as against the price of US $ 29,924.10 reflected in the invoice presented by the appellant along with the corresponding Bill of Entry.2.2 In respect of B/E 110097, dated 22-10-96, as against the declared value of US $ 27,822.05, the authorities noticed that the said goods were insured by the supplier for US $ 56,589.01. Similar evidence of insurance value of US $ 52,982.18 against the decl...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kafila Forge Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT343TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the transmission shafts and its parts manufactured by the respondents were classifiable under heading 84.83 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. The contention of the revenue is that the transmission shafts manufactured by the respondents specially designed for use in the motor vehicle of Chapter 87 of the Tariff. Therefore are to be classified under heading as parts of vehicles. We find that this issue is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore, 1998 (102) ELT 732 and in the case of Servall Engineering Works Vs. CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Venkatachalapathy Industries, 1999 (106) ELT 176. In these cases, crank shafts, tappet shafts, gear wheels, pulleys and picking shafts are to be classifiable under heading 84.83 of the Central Excise Tariff being specifically covered therein and not as parts...
Universal Glass Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)(112)LC677Tri(Delhi)
1. The differential duty demand is in respect of captively consumed goods. Originally, the goods were subjected to duty based on the value of comparable goods. The present impugned order has held that goods are required to be assessed on the cost of production and when the assessment is made on that basis, there was a short levy of about Rs. 8 lakhs.2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that it is not in dispute that the goods sold by the appellants to unrelated parties were comparable goods. On that basis only, the original assessment was made. The Assistant Collector has also approved assessee ex-factory prices to independent buyers. The learned Counsel points out that it is well settled that assessment based on cost of production can be undertaken only if comparable price is not available Ashok Leyland Ltd v. CCE, Madras The learned Counsel also cites an earlier order of this Tribunal in the appellants own case reported in 2000 (88) ECR 726 which had als...
Oswal Chemicals and Fertilisers Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC216
1. The appellants are seeking refund of excise duty, which they had allegedly paid in excess than was required to be paid under the law.The appellants manufacture fertilizers and they procured naptha from refineries during the period from 25.9.96 to 16.10.96 on payment of duty. In terms of Notification No. 75/84-CE and its successor Notification No. 8/96-CE dated 23.7.96, naptha cleared fro manufacture of ammonia and urea is eligible for concessional rate of duty, subject to observance of procedure contained in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The said procedure envisaged obtaining a L6 licence and obtaining the supplies under CT2 certificates. Due to their inability to obtain the L6 licence during the relevant time, the appellants procured the supplies from M/s. Bahrat Petroleum (BPCL) on payment of price which included full excise duty as against the price inclusive of concessional rate prescribed in the notification. On establishing their claim before the jurisdictional ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »