Delhi Court December 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.
Anwar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT594; 2004(73)DRJ690
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.5.2000 and order of sentence dated 23.5.2000 whereby the appellants was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default RI for two years.2. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 4.8.98 at about 10.30 am near main road, Friends Enclave G Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi the appellant was apprehended and searched by the police and found in his possession 30 grams of heroin. Appropriate charges under Section 21 of the NDPS Act were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and other material on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge held the charges against the appellant as proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier.3. In appeal learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate, has not challenged the conviction of the appellan...
Mohd. Salim @ Pappu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT605
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. By this order, I propose to deal with two criminal appeals bearing No. 663 of 2000 -- Mohd. Salim @ Pappu and CRLA 702 of 2000 -- Mohd. Mustaqeem @ Raju, both arising out of judgment of conviction dated 2.8.2000 and the order of sentence dated 11.8.2000 whereby both appellants were held guilty under Sections 364/34, IPC and 397/34, IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs. one thousand each in default SI for a month.2. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 18.7.1997, the appellants engaged a taxi (Armada) DL 3C G-7334 for going to Aligarh to fetch their parents. Hire charges were settled @ Rs. 1,000/- and it was agreed that they will come back to Delhi the same day evening. Accordingly, the complainant along with the appellant left Delhi at about 10.30 a.m. in the said Armada No. DL 3C G-7334 and when they reached Aligarh, the appellants asked him to go a little further. When the jeep reached near Kirawali on the road leading Mainpur...
U.B. Engineers Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Del)1001
ORDERG.S. Pannu, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessed arising out of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-1-2003 pertaining to assessment year 1998-99. The appellant in the impugned appeal has raised two main grounds of appeal. The first ground is in relation to the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,50,000 made by.the assessing officer being the amount of capital introduced by one of its partners Mr. A.P.S. Bawa as undisclosed income of the firm. The second ground is with regard to the action of the assessing officer for levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act. The aforesaid two grounds are being taken up by us in subsequent paragraphs in Serialtim.2. At the time of hearing Shri Rakesh Gupta, C.A., appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri R.R. Prasad, learned departmental Representative on behalf of the respondent-department. Their submissions have been considered while disposing of the present petiti...
Cce Vs. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC329
1. The respondent M/s. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd. manufacture adhesives, which are liable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter Sub-Heading 3506 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The duty is on ad-valorem basis. The appellants give a cash discount of 4% to buyers who make prompt payment i.e. within 5 to 7 days of delivery.This discount was not given to buyers who fail to make payment within the stipulated time. All the same, deduction of the cash discount was claimed while making payment of duty in all cases. Similarly, appellants claimed coin discount on the ground that the value of the coin kept inside each consignment was required to be deducted to determine the assessable value of the goods. The central excise authorities issued show cause notice holding that the deductions claimed by the appellants in respect of cash discount and coin discount were not eligible deductions from sale price and that these amounts should also form part of the value of the goods f...
Cce Vs. H.E.G. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC428
1. This appeal is against a common order-in-original dated 27.9.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur in adjudication of 16 show - cause notices issued from time to time during July 1997 to April, 2001. The show-cause notices had proposed to disallow capital goods duty credit to the respondents for successive periods comprised in October, 1995 to September, 2000. The total Modvat credit so proposed to be denied to the respondents was Rs. 1,93,42,097/-.2. M/s. H.E.G. Ltd (respondents) had two factories one at Durg (Chattisgarh) and the other one at Raisen (Madhya Pradesh) the former manufacturing sponge iron and the latter manufacturing graphite electrode. In their Durg factory premises, they had a captive thermal power plant (hereinafter referred to as 'CPP') of 12.8 MW capacity having three boilers, one steam turbine and a generator. The stem generated in these boilers was used to generate electricity which was used captively for manufacture of sponge iron. The su...
Cce Vs. Marvel Vinyls Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC483
1. M/s Marvel Vinyls Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of PVC sheets.The item is liable to central excise duty on ad valorem basis.2. The issue raised in these appeals is whether the appellants failed to enter full quantity of products in the books of account and pay duty on the full quantity of goods manufactured and cleared from the factory. The dispute has arisen thus. The PVC sheets manufactured by the assessee are packed and stored in rolls and sold that way. The Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's factory on 13.2.1999.They observed that lengths of PVC rolls was actually slightly (1.38 to 4%) higher than the length entered in the statutory record of production (RG-I). When questioned about discrepancy between the actual quantity found on verification and the quantity entered in the statutory records, the appellant's officer explained that the item in question is liable to shrinkage. Therefore, allowance towards shrinkage is provided to their buyers. This explanation...
Corda India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT253TriDel
1. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, I am of the view that the appeals require to be finally disposed of at this stage.Accordingly, after granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amounts, I proceed to deal with the appeals.2. The Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order of the Commissioner was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. No notice of hearing for 1-3-2002 (date of final hearing fixed by the Commissioner) was received by the appellants. Moreover, copies of the statements of cross-examination were also not supplied to them.On 1-3-2002, a few officers of the department were personally heard by the Commissioner behind the back of the appellants.3. Contesting this submission of the Counsel, the DR submits that the hearing in the case was held on a day-to-day basis and therefore, it was not necessary for the Commissioner to issue any formal notice of hearing to the parties. It is amply cl...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhaskar Ispat (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT422TriDel
1. Issue arising in this appeal is whether the charges for the inspection by RITES is liable to be added to the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellant/assessee. It is seen that there are number of decisions of this Tribunal on this issue conflicting with each other. In the appellant's own case in Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda [2001 (133) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.)] a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has taken a view that absence of optionality and the existence of every buyer insisting upon tests by RITES, make the charges thereof includible in the assessable value. In appellants own case the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in its Final Order Nos. A-393-394/Cal./2003, dated 10-6-2003 [2003 (161) E.L.T. 822 (T)] has taken a different view. It is seen that the Bombay decision is not referred in the order passed by the Calcutta Bench but number of other decisions taking different views have been referred in the case.2....
Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rotomac Pens (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ429; 2004(28)PTC300(Del)
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This application has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction order restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in stationery products including pens/ball pens/jotter pens or pens of any nature or any other stationery items/goods as may be cognate or allied to the plaintiff's goods or the goods of the same description and/or goods having similar trade channels and/or goods as a dealt with by similar class of traders and purchasers under the mark `SOLO' and/or any other mark which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark `SOLO' and/or from doing any other act as is likely to cause confusion and or deception amounting to passing off defendant's goods and/or business as the goods and/or business of the plaintiff. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows. The plaintiff Company was incorporated in 28.5.1996 ...
Toyo Eng. Corp. Vs. Cimmco Birla Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR187(Delhi); 109(2004)DLT97; 2004(73)DRJ758
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 7.6.2002 made and published by Mr. Justice (Retd) P.K.Bahri by filing this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act).2. The petitioner company was engaged by M/s .Chambel Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd (CFCL, in short) for the installation and commissioning of its Gadepan-II project (expansion of the existing fertilizer manufacturing facility). The petitioner in turn sub-contracted the supply/fabrication of equipment/machinery/civil works to various parties and released 5 purchase orders to the respondent company for the fabrication and supply of 22 nos.stainless steel vessels comprised therein for an aggregate value of Rs. 4.78 crore. The project was eligible for deemed export benefits to be granted to sub contractors on the issue of certificate by the CFCL whereunder all payments towards excise duty were refundable and also the custom duty on imported items was relaxed. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »