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.
Kamlapur Sugar and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC291a
1. The appellants are sugar manufacturers. A shortage of 19.87 MT of molasses was found in their steel tank. They filed an application for remission of duty amounting to Rs. 9,935/- on the above quantity of molasses found short. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the application. Hence, the present appeal.2. There is no representation for the appellants today. It appears from the record that they have waived the right to be heard, and want the case to be decided on its merits.3. I have examined the records and heard ld. DR, who has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.4. It is not in dispute that there was a shortage of 19.87 MTs of molasses in the appellant's steel tank as on 27-8-2001. The duty payable on that quantity was Rs. 9,935/-. On 27-8-2001, the appellants intimated the shortage to the Central Excise Range Supdt. In their letter dated 27-8-2001, they stated the reasons of shortage as under :- (1) "The production of molasses is stored in the storage ...
Goramal Hari Ram Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT403TriDel
1. In this application filed by the assesee, they have claimed that there is an apparent mistake in the Final Order passed by this Bench on 31-7-2002 in Appeal No. C/252/2002/NB(SM). The mistake as pointed out by the applicants is that the Tribunal erred in not granting the benefit of Modvat credit by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides P. Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T.401 (S.C)]. The applicants submit that the Supreme Court in the said case had not dealt with or decided on any question of Modvat credit taken or not taken. Their submission as contained in para (iii) of the application is that they had been consistently pleading for the benefit of Modvat credit of CVD in lieu of refund.2. To briefly recapitulate the facts of the case, the applicants had paid CVD at 18% on 'Palm Kernel Fatty Acid Distillate' imported and cleared under Bill of Entry dated 24-10-98. The classification of the goods at the time of such clearance was held under Chapt...
Varun Fabs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT824TriDel
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the appellants have a fairly strong case and accordingly, I admit the appeal.2. The stay application is also being taken up. In this application the prayer is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of penalty of Rs. 17,500/- imposed by the lower authorities on the applicants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The allegation raised by the department in the show cause notice was that the applicants had made clearances of their final product by paying duty by cheques issued to the Chief Accounts Officer of Central Excise, Chandigarh without maintaining sufficient balance in their PLA.Similar show cause notices were issued to a large number of other manufacturers also. The adjudicating authority accepted the department's proposal to impose penalties on all such manufacturers under Rule 173Q and, accordingly, imposed a total penalty of Rs. 2,46,500/- on all manufacturers (inclu...
Prem Sagar Aggarwal, Shri Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC364
1. These three appeals are directed against a common Order-in-Original dated 31.8.2001. Accordingly, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Relevant facts leading to the passing of the impugned order may be stated first. M/s J.P. Bearing Co. is a dealer in a ball bearings, located Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. On 13.10.99, its premises were searched by the officers of Customs. They seized about 52,000 pieces of ball bearings of assorted sizes of foreign origin. The goods were collectively-valued around Rs. 55.5 lakh, M/s J.P. Bearing Co. could not produce any document relating to import of these goods, Subsequently, statements were recorded from partners of J.P. Bearing Co. as to how they had required the goods in question. It was their explanation that they purchased the goods from various dealers through brokers and that part of the goods had been sold by the Customs Authorities. Some bills relating to purchase and particulars of payments for the goods were als...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Galaxy Indo Fab. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT960TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 10-10-2001 (wrongly typed 2002 in the memo of appeal), vide which the Commissioner has allowed the abatement claim of the respondents for the period 18-2-2000 to 28-2-2000 and also directed the respondents to pay interest as well as mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount for the delayed deposit of the duty in terms of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Rules.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents applied for abatement of duty for the period 18-2-2000 to 28-2-2000 on the ground that their stenter remained closed for this period. They, however, did not make deposit of the duty for the entire month of Feb. 2000 in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, at the time of filing of abatement claim. They however, later during the pendency of the rebate claim made deposit of the entire duty in instalment as detailed in the order itself. The Commissioner has allowed abatement claim but directed the...
Asi Chottey Lal Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ93CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order issued by the respondents dated 28.5.1999 by which his name has been removed from the secret list of persons of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 29.12.1998. According to Mr.Bhaskar Bhardwaj, learned Counsel, this action of removing the applicant's name should have been done w.e.f. 21.5.1992 instead of 29.12.1998, as ordered by the respondents.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was issued a charge-sheet by issuing a summary of allegations on 4.6.1992 but his name was brought on secret list of persons of doubtful integrity vide order dated 28.5.1999. The respondents have stated that this was done on the basis of the Departmental inquiry ordered against the applicant by DCP/East District order dated 16.4.1992. The Departmental inquiry was pending till the decision of the criminal case pending against one SI, Manoj Pant on the same charges. The respondents have submitted that accordingly the applicant's name continued in the ...
S.R. Arya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ222CAT
1. In this application, the applicant has impugned the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Presidential order dated 10.6.2002 which has been passed in furtherance of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 29.8.2001.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant, who was a Development Officer in the office of respondents, was prosecuted on a bribery charge and was convicted and sentenced by the Special Court to two years rigourous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 2000 vide judgment/order dated 23.12.1995. He had filed Criminal Appeal No.247/95 against this order and had obtained stay vide order dated 27.12.1995, which had stayed the operation of the sentence. He was given a notice by the respondents and was proceeded against and dismissed from service vide order dated 16.10.2000 passed by the President in exercise of power under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, (hereafter referred to as "the Rules"). This order had been challenged by the applican...
Kailash Chand Nagpal and anr. Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC1
1. Appellants are defendants 2 and 1 in O.A. 174/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The 1st respondent-plaintiff-Corporation Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed the said O.A. for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,19,991/- with interest thereon @ 21.75% per annum against the defendants/appellants and defendants 3 and 4. 2nd appellant is the company, of which the 1st appellant and defendants 3 and 4 are stated to be the Directors. The respondent-Bank also prayed that the 5th defendant should pay a part of this amount. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by his ex parte final order dated 7.12.2000 directed the defendants 1 to 4 to jointly pay the abovesaid sum with interest and costs. The 5th defendant was also saddled with the liability to pay the part of the abovesaid amount.2. Aggrieved, an application for setting aside the ex parte final order was filed. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation ...
British Airways Plc. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)80TTJ(Delhi)337
1. By this reference under Section 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961 the following point of difference was referred to me : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the directions given by the Vice President while setting aside the matter to the file of the AO to recompute the assessee's taxable income were appropriate or those of the JM were proper?" 2. The facts are that the cross appeals of the assessee and the Revenue came up before the Bench. The main issues taken up by the assessee are in regard to assessability of the receipt from engineering and ground handling services as income in India and in the alternative the question of computation of such income to be taxed in India. The appeal of the Revenue is on the ground of enhancing deduction from the gross receipt @ 30 per cent by the learned CIT(A).3. Insofar as the assessability of the receipt from engineering and ground handling services, the Bench agreed that the same is taxable in India.4. Coming to the comp...
Deepak Chopra (Huf) and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Adhupia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)540; 103(2003)DLT499; 2003(67)DRJ589
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. By this Order I shall dispose of the present application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 praying for the passing of a decree of ejectment against the Defendant. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the 'premises was let out by the Plaintiff No. 1 to the Defendant along with fittings, furniture and electrical equipment etc. for a period of five years commencing from 1st day of April, 2000 at a total monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- ....'. A Lease Deed was entered into between the parties but it is neither adequately stamped nor is it registered. It, thereforee, cannot be read in evidence. Along with the Lease Deed, however, two Agreements of even date were also executed pertaining (i) to the hire of furniture, fittings and (ii) to maintenance. The hire charges were fixed at Rs.7000/- per month and the maintenance charges were fixed at Rs.18,000/-. By deduction, thereforee, the rent is Rs.8,000/- per month. 2. A legal Notice to Quit dated 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »