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.
Alankit Assignments Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)1053
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal has been directed by the appellant against the order of the assessing officer dated 20-3-2001, for block period 1-4-1986 to 19-4-1996. As mentioned by the assessing officer in the impugned block assessment order search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out at the business premises of the assessed-company and at the residence of the Director Sh. Alok Aggarwal and his wife Smt. Alka Aggarwal on 19-4-1996 (Smt. Alka Aggarwal was not director).2. Assessment in this case was originally completed under section 158BC/143(3) at an undisclosed income of Rs. 2,97,58,916 as against nil undisclosed income declared by the appellant in response to section 158BC. But on appeal, the Tribunal set aside the said assessment order with a directions to the assessing officer to frame a fresh assessment order de novo on the ground that the appellant had not been provided proper and adequate opportunity in the course of assessment pro...
National Steel Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT686TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. National Steel Industries Ltd. is whether Zinc Dross is liable to excise duty under Chapter 26 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri M.P. Dev Nath, learned Advocate submitted that for manufacture of Galvanized Flat rolled products of iron and steel, the Appellants used zinc ingots; that in the process of production of said products, zinc dross is generated as waste; that it has been held by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1142; that the zinc dross is merely the impurity which arises as a result of the process of Galvanization of steel sheets and settle at the bottom and during the same galvanization process, Ammonium chloride is used as a flex for cleaning the impurities from steel sheets; that this Ammonium Chloride when mixed with molten Zinc also creates some impurities in the form of flex which floats to the surfac...
Lal International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC209
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Lal International Pvt. Ltd. is whether affixing of sticker on imported goods will amount to manufacture in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri R. Krishnan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported chocolates for marketing in India without undertaking any process under the foreign brand name already affixed on the chocolates; that in terms of provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packing of Commodities) Rules, they have to affix the sticker on the imported chocolates containing the statutory stipulations namely, name and address and maximum retail price; that the Revenue has considered the said activity as manufacturing activity and has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty; that the matter stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Panchsheel Soap Factory - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 527 (Tri. - Del.) wherein...
Diamond Cements Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC560
1. In all these 11 appeals, filed by M/s. Diamond Cements, the issue involved is regarding admissibility of Modvat Credit.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that in 8 appeals Modvat Credit has been denied to them in respect of Lubricants on the ground that the lubricant has been used in dumpers, D.G. sets, aerial ropeway which are not used in the factory of production but for transportation of goods either in the mines or transportation of goods from mines to the factory, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jay Pee Rewa Cement v. CCE, 2001 (77) ECC 457 (SC : 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC). The learned Advocate, further, submitted that at the appellants' unit at Narsingarh, Damoh, the only activity undertaken is clinkerisation and cement grinding is done at Imlai; that the findings for disallowing the Modvat Credit on Lubricants is factually incorrect; that no D.G. sets are located outside the factory in which the lubricants and greases are used; that all the D.G. set...
H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT435TriDel
2. The appellants have moved the present ROM application seeking rectification of mistake in the impugned final order No. 98/02-C dated 9-5-2002 vide which their appeal was dismissed. The ground made out for seeking rectification in the application is that, the issue of limitation specifically raised by them in the grounds of appeal had not been considered while passing the impugned order. This very ground has been reiterated by the counsel before us.3. The learned SDR has, however, contended that the plea of limitation raised by the appellants could not be considered as they did not put up appearance on 9-5-2002 - the date on which the appeal was listed for hearing.4. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record we find that on 9-5-2002, the present appeal was posted for regular hearing, but on that date none appeared on behalf of the appellants and the Bench decided the appeal by following the earlier order of the Tribunal passed in the appellants' own case ...
Hemant Bhai R. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC823
1. The West Regional Bench at Bombay before whom the above appeals by importers came up for hearing sought to refer two issues for decision of the Larger Bench. The issues are as follows:- (1) Whether in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, the power vests in the adjudicating authority to prescribe any fine for reexport when liability to confiscation under Section 111 is established? (2) Whether in the circumstances where the misdeclaration, etc., is established leading to the orders of the confiscation of the goods, penalty is not leviable when the goods are sought to be re-exported? On going through the detailed referal order we understand the issue No.(1) to mean whether in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act power is vested with the adjudicating authority to impose redemption fine when liability to confiscation under Section 111 is established even when permission for re-export is granted. Both sides appearing before us also agree that scope of issue No.(1) is as above.2. ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. U.P. Asbestos Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT468TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The issue involved in this appeal is in respect of benefit of Notification No. 60/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91 which exempts the goods containing 25 per cent or more fly ash from payment of Central Excise duty.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, in the impugned order, held that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of notification as they were following the procedure laid down by the revenue to show that their final product contains 25 per cent or more fly ash.4. The contention of the revenue that the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise show that the respondents had been maintaining the prescribed record is not based on any evidence. The Commissioner of Central Excise, in the impugned order, had not mentioned any record examined by her. The contention of the revenue is also that the respondents are claiming the benefit of notification, therefore, onus is on the resp...
Shri Sanjay Poddar Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)104; 103(2003)DLT801; 2003(67)DRJ521; 2003(2)JCC664
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. Rule D.B.With the consent of the parties this Writ Petition is being finally disposed of.1. This is a writ petition filed by an advocate of this Court, inter alia, praying for calling of the records of the Respondent (Central Bureau of Investigation) relating to RC No. DAI/2002/A/0062 dated 7.11.2002 and for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash/set aside the RC No. DAI/2002/A/0062 dated 7.11.2002 (hereinafter referred to as the `said FIR') copy whereof has been annexed as 'Annexure P-5' to the Petition.2. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi on 27.1.1989 and was appointed as Government advocate by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in the year 1995 and conducted cases of this Government till 1999. Around 1997 the petitioner was also appointed as Government advocate by the Land and Building Department dealing with acquisition matters and which he has been doing till date.3. Before adver...
Suraj Bhan Chauhan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT633; 2003(70)DRJ344; 2004(3)SLJ64(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 22.8.1970. With effect from 6.7.1972, the petitioner was promoted as School Inspector. On attaining the age of 58 years, petitioner was retired w.e.f. 30th June, 1988. It was the case of the petitioner that in terms of the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the petitioner could continue to serve up to the age of 60 years. Reliance for this is also placed by the petitioner upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sheela Puri v. M.C.D. CWP 1365/84 decided on May 22, 1988. Counter affidavit to the writ petition has not been filed by the respondent. 2. Age of retirement of school teachers in M.C.D. is admittedly 60 years. In Sheela Puri's case the stand of the M.C.D. was that on promotion as school inspector the teacher ceases to be a teacher and consequently the age of retirement of teachers will not be applicable in the case of school inspector....
S.C. Khurana Vs. the Project Equipment Corpn. of India Limited Thr. It ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)415; 107(2003)DLT767; 2004(2)SLJ317(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed Stenographer on 23.2.1977. He was confirmed on this post by letter dated 23rd March, 1978. Vide the letter dated 4th January, 1980, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Secretary in the pay-scale of Rs.600-990. His promotion to the post of Secretary was on probation for a period of one year. On successful completion of the period of probation, the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Secretary vide order dated 5.1.1981. The post was upgraded in the pay-scale of Rs.975-35-1255 by office order dated 2nd March, 1985 w.e.f. 3.12.1984. In this office order, the name of the petitioner has been shown as OM (Officiating). Post of Secretary and Office Manager (OM) are equal status posts. Clause 2 of this office order states that all the employees mentioned in the office order except those upgraded on officiating basis will be on probation for a period of one year and the completion of their probation satisfactorily will depend entirely on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »