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.
Chinttpurni Engineering Works Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT427TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Chinttpurni Engineering Works, the issues involved are whether the processes undertaken by them amount to manufacture and whether the cost of inputs supplied free of cost by the Railways is to be included in the assessable value of the goods.2. Shri C. Harishankar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants fabricate Fan shaped switches, tongue rails and stock rails (out of which Switch Expansion Joints are fabricated at site) and Check Rails out of rails supplied free of cost by the Railways; that SEJs do not come into being at the factory of the Appellants at all since they are capable of coming into existence as SEJs only at the site, when they are welded to the ground; that they clear only tongue and stock rails from their factory; that the production of tongue rails and stock rails merely involved bending of rail lengths at both ends; that such tongue rails and stock rails, when fastened to the ground at the rail site with the requisite access...
Kinetic Motor Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT491TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue involved in this appeal is in respect of the benefit of Notification No. 154/86-Cus., dated 1-3-86.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants made an import of machine and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 154/86-Cus., dated 1-3-86. The Assessing Authority denied the benefit. The appellants had not challenged the Assessment order but filed a refund claim.3. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection that the refund is not maintainable as the appellants had not filed the appeal against the Assessment order. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v.Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 = 2000 (40) RLT 131 (SC)].4. The contention of the appellants is that at the relevant time the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that any person claiming refund of a...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Munjal Gases
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1006TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether the Respondents M/s. Munjal Gases are eligible to avail exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-93.2. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR, submitted that the Respondents in their unit No. 1 manufactured Oxygen gases and claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 1/93; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 379-82/99, dated 6-3-2000 disallowed the benefit of the Notification and confirmed the demand of duty of excise on the ground that as in their second unit, manufacturing Acetylene gas, they paid the Central Excise. duty and availed of Modvat credit and as both the units were one organisation, that, however, the Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents following the Tribunal's decision in their own case vide Final Order No. 500-501 /-C, dated 25-6-1999. The learned SDR, further, submitted that Notification No. 1/93-C.E. clearly mentions that if ...
Harsh Vardhan Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ199CAT
1. This combined order seeks to dispose of the four O.As. all challenging the repatriation of the applicants, who were depuationists with Government of NCT of Delhi to their parent Organisations.2. All the O.As. were heard together when Mr. Balraj Dewan, learned Counsel appeared for the applicants, Smt. Avnish Ahlawat with Shri Mohit Madan represented the respondents-Government of NCT of Delhi and Smt. B. Rana with Ms. Manu Lall represented the UPSC.3.1 O.A.-845/2002- the applicant (Shri Harsh Vardhan) holding M.Sc.Degree along with Diploma in Document Examination from the National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science (NICFS), who joined as Scientific Assistant (Document) in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Madhuban, Karnal Haryana, became a Senior Scientific Assistant in April, 1986 and came over on deputation basis as Senior Scientific Officer (Document), with Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Delhi on 3.11.1995. He applied for absorption in the borrowing Organisatio...
G. Vivekanand Swamijee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ182CAT
1. The applicant in this case, is aggrieved that following his success in the Combined Engineering Services Examination, 1995 (CESE 1995), he has not been allotted to his parent Department, i.e., CPWD/Central Engineering Service (CES).2. Heard Mr. Dalip Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr.E.X. Joseph, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Khatter for the respondents.3. Shri G. Vivekanand Swamijee, the applicant joined CPWD as a Junior Engineer (JE) on 7.4.1984 and was promoted as an Assistant Engineer (AE) on 17.9.1993. He appeared as a departmental candidate in the Central Engineering Service Examination, 1995. He was granted age relaxation under Rule 5 (b) of the Examination Rules, being a departmental candidate. He had given his preference for appointment in the CES/CPWD. When the results on CESE 1995 were announced, the applicant's name was missing. However, after three years, in March, 1998, following a police inquiry on applicant's antecedents, he represented to ...
Sq. Ldr. Kashi Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)364; 103(2003)DLT349; 2003(67)DRJ578
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner is an ex-serviceman, who retired on 2nd January, 1984 as Sq. Leader from Indian Air Force when he was 42 years of age. It is a common case of the parties that respondent No. 2, as a measure of rehabilitation, has formulated a policy reserving 7.5 percent of the Oil Product agencies namely, LPG, Petrol Pumps and kerosene oil agencies, to certain categories of defense personnel. It is one of the various schemes for resettlement of retired service personnel because persons belonging to defense services normally retire at comparatively younger age and much earlier than the retirement age prescribed for civil services.2. In accordance with the aforesaid policy Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as IOC, for short)/respondent No. 4 herein issued an advertisement in October 1985 inviting applications for award of LPG dealership at various locations from the candidates belonging to following categories under the defense quota.:-a. defense personnel who ...
Aig (Mauritius) Llc Vs. Tata Televentures (Holdings) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)672; 103(2003)DLT250
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The question which calls for determination is whether, in the factual matrix disclosed in the pleadings of the parties to this petition, Section 395 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') could have been invoked by the Respondents with the intent of compulsorily acquiring the entire shareholding of the Petitioner, namely, AIG (Mauritius) LLC in the erstwhile Respondent No.2, Tata Cellular Limited, Respondent No.1. Tata Televentures (Holdings) Limited, had in terms of its notice dated 24.7.2001, invoking Section 395 of the Act, required the Petitioner to sell its stake in Respondent No.2 at a price of Rs.10/- per share for cash. Counsel for the parties have unanimously contended that I should pronounce on the preliminary issue of whether the said Section has been properly and correctly invoked by Respondent No.1. It is only in the event that this Court comes to the conclusion that Respondent No.1 was authorised, competent and entitled in ...
Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)729
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. The services of the petitioner were terminated after holding an enquiry into the charges leveled against him by the management. On a dispute being raised by the workman, the appropriate Government made a reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law. The management in its written statement filed before the Labour Court had taken a specific plea that in case the enquiry conducted by the management was set aside, an opportunity should be given to the management to prove the allegation of misconduct in Court. The Labour Court on 8.12.2000, passed an award holding that there was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice while holding the enquiry and the enquiry was, accordingly, set aside and as a consequence thereof the workman was held to be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and with ful...
Keld Ellentoft India (P) Ltd. Vs. Ke Burgmann and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC541(Del)
S. Mukerjee, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to an Order dated 21.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in is 5509/2001 in Suit No. 1144/2001, whereby the temporary injunction application was allowed and the defendant No. 2 in the suit was restrained in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) of the said injunction application which are quoted here-in-below for convenience of reference :-(a) An order of interim injunction be granted restraining the defendants, their promoters, officers, servants, agents, dealers, distributors or anyone acting for and on their behalf from in any manner using the KE logo or any logo which is a substantial reproduction of a colorable imitation of the plaintiffs logo in relation to any products or services thereby constituting infringement of the plaintiffs copyright in the said logo.(b) An order of interim injunction be granted restraining the defendants, their promoters, officers, servants, agents, dealers, distributors or anyone acting f...
Alok Aggarwal Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)1062
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Special Range-13, New Delhi, under section 158BC read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for the block period 1-4-1986 to 19-4-1996. The original block assessment in consequence of a search action taken under section 132 of the Act on 19-4-1996, against the appellant at his business and residential premises was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Range-13, New Delhi, under section 158BC at a total undisclosed income of Rs. 25,50,69,506 against nil undisclosed income returned by the appellant under section 158BC. In an appeal filed by the appellant against the original block assessment (ITA No. 124/Del/1997), the 'E' Bench set aside the original block assessment order in toto with observations and directions as under :'On the reasons stated above briefly, it is clear that the assessment framed was in violation of the principles of na...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »