Delhi Court February 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.
Satish Kumar Nayar Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT946; 2004(74)DRJ643
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner registered under the NPRS, 1979 scheme for an MIG flat giving her address as A-2/4 Model Town, Delhi. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 21st July, 1986 requesting for a change of address to B-163, Gujranwala Town, Delhi. The said letter was sent by Regd. AD post and the Regd. AD receipt as well as acknowledgement card have been filed on record and originals have been produced before the Court. A further change of address was requested in the letter dated 23rd April, 1990 from the said address to B-125, Derawala Nagar, Delhi. This letter is stated to have been given in a public hearing but there is no acknowledgement of the said letter on the office copy.2. The petitioner claims that he came to know only in the year 2001 that a flat had been allotted in 1994 to the petitioner bearing flat No. 184, III Floor, Pocket 2, Sector 23, Rohini but the allotment letter was sent at the Model Town addressed and the said allotment letter was returned. T...
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC211
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Uniworth Textile Limited, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97 is available to them in respect of Furnace Oil purchased by them from Coastal Wartsila Petroleum Ltd. 2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, fairly mentioned that the issue involved in the present matter has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Uniworth Textile v. CCE, Raipur, 2003 (54) RLT 512 (CEGAT) and as such benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus is not available to the Appellants. He, however, submitted that the demand of duty is barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued on 2.8.2001 by demanding the duty for the period January/February, 2001; that the Department was aware that the Appellants do not have power plant and as such the furnace oil could not have been used by them captively; that this is evident from the letter dated 17.7.2001 of Asst. Development Commissioner, N.E.P.Z., addressed to the Asst.Commissi...
Wearwell Tyre and Tube Ind. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC383
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of vehicle tyres falling under CET Heading 40.11 during the material period. They cleared 456 Nos. of 900-20 size Nylon tyres labelled "ADV" during the period 1.10.86 to 31.12.86 without payment of duty, treating the goods as tyres of a kind used on animal-drawn vehicles (in short, ADV tyres) falling under sub-heading 4011.10 attracting 'nil' rate of duty under Notification No. 229/82-CE dated 15.10.1982. The department, by inquiries through its officers, noticed that the above tyres cleared by the appellants were motor, vehicle tyres chargeable to duty @ Rs. 1050 per pc. under CET sub-heading 4011.60, that the appellants did not manufacture ADV tyres at all and that they cleared the above consignment of tyres in the guise of clearing ADV tyres of CET sub-heading 4011.10 chargeable to nil rate of duty. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 26.4.88 was issued to the appellants raising a demand of duty of Rs. 4,78,800 on the above consign...
Midi Extrusions Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC664
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee challenge is against the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut affirming a duty demand of Rs. 28,95,935 under two different show cause notices dated 30.10.2000 and 9.8.2001 Penalty of equal amount imposed is also under challenge.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium extruded sections classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7604.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The allegation in the show cause notice dated 30.10.2000 was that the appellant had indulged in evading duty in association with M/s. WHITE Metals which according to the Revenue is allied company of the appellant. The allegation is that there are common shareholders and Directors in the two companies. The appellant purchases raw materials from M/s. White Metals and sells finished goods to them. It is alleged that the appellant had utilised Rs. 74,349.16 in the year 1997-98 and Rs. 2 crores in 1998-99 advanced by M/s. White Metals as...
Rangoli Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT389TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 15-6-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original dated 28-1-2000 of the Addl.Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,65,624/- with equal amount of penalty.2. The demand of Rs. 3,65,623/- has been confirmed against the appellants by denying them the Modvat credit of that amount which they illegally availed before the installation and utilization of the capital goods for the manufacture of the final product i.e. Glazed Ceramic Tiles. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellants availed the Modvat credit during the period December 1997 to March 1998, whereas the machinery was installed thereafter, and even the registration certificate was got amended for production of the Glazed Ceramic Tiles only on 26-12-1998. The adjudicating authority accordingly disallowed the Modvat credit for having taken in contravention of Rule 57Q(7) and the ...
Spl Industries Ltd., Shri H.R. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT720TriDel
1. The issues involved in these four appeals are whether the Central Excise duty was payable by M/s. SPL Industries Ltd. Under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act as claimed by them or under Section 3 of the Act as confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned Order and whether penalties under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rules 9 (2) and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules on the Appellant Company and under Rule 209A on the other Appellants are imposable.2. Shri M. Charidrashekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Appellant company is engaged in the processing of cotton and man made fabrics; that with effect from 16.12.1998, they started paying duty under the "Compounded Levy Scheme" under Notification No. 36/98-CE dated 10.12.1999 at the rate of Rs. 7.5 lakhs per month; that by Notification No. 2/99-CE (NT) dated 13.1.1999 the Independent processors having proprietary interest in the spinning of yarn or weaving or knitting of fabrics were excluded from the purview ...
Bihari Lal Jalan, Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)93; 104(2003)DLT53; 2003(68)DRJ593
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. These petitions concern the residential colony of Basant Enclave, SFS Flats, (hereinafter referred to as 'Basant Enclave') New Delhi. The questions that arise for consideration in these petitions being common were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The issues involved pertain to the unauthorised building activities past, present and future, in the said Basant Enclave and the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent Authorities which include the DDA and the MCD in curbing this menace.2. These petitions which have been filed at different points of time starting from 1992 to 2001 have a chequered history inasmuch as several orders during the pendency of these petitions have been passed by this Court and several reports of various authorities have been filed on the record. We need not go into detail of all these orders and/or reports. However, in order to appreciate the nature of the issues involved and to finally dispose these ma...
Monika Kaushik Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)760; 103(2003)DLT693
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in the three years Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Course commenced from October, 2002. 2. In response to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 for admission to Three Years Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery Course for the academic session 2002-03, the petitioner applied for admission in the said course. Selection to the course was to be strictly on the basis of aggregate of best four subjects obtained by a candidate in Class XII of a candidate. 5% weightage was to be given to those candidates, who passed Class XII in first attempt. It was so stated in the prospectus. It was also clearly mentioned mat 'Application forms complete in all respects along with attested photocopies of all certificates should reach the office of the Principal, School of Nursing, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi-95 by 21.8.2002 (1...
Satish Kumar Kapoor Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT41
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. CW No. 1327/2000:Rule 1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner was granted perpetual sub-lease hold rights in respect of plot A-80, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi, measuring 900 square yards (752.51 square metres) in pursuance to the perpetual sub-lease deed 10.1.1972. The petitioner was required to construct on the plot in question within a period of two years from 21.9.1971 in terms of Clause 11(5). This period in terms of guidelines of respondent were extended to three years from two years. Thus the petitioner was required to complete the construction by 20.9.1974. '3. It is not disputed that a general amnesty period was provided from 1.1.1971 to 31.12.1975 in view of the shortage of steel, cement and necessary requirements for carrying on construction. On 15.9.1976 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was notified and made applicable to Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the...
Sqn. Ldr. R. Bhusal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT248; 2004(3)SLJ26(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.The petitioner has filed writ petition as he has not been granted Permanent Commission. In the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 14.2.2002, of the respondent being arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. The other prayer of the petitioner is to the following effect:'(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents directing them to provide alternate employability and job in case if he became permanently disabled for flying being attributable to service. (c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents directing them to consider the petitioner for flying in case he improves and provide appropriate medical aid if so required.' 2. The petitioner joined as Trainee Pilot after necessary competition and examination, with an assurance that he will be considered for Permanent Commission after Short Service Commission term. It is the case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »