Delhi Court March 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.
Plethico Pharmaceuticals and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC109
1. The appellant M/s. Plethico Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is a manufacturer of medicines. They imported a consignment of over 42 M.T. of extract of liquorice root and filed a Bill of Entry No. 802 dated 14.9.2001 for the clearance of the goods. The import was from M/s. Al-Rai Trading Est. UAE Dubai and the transaction value worked out to over Rs. 11.39 per kg. The importer sought assessment of the goods at the transaction value. The impugned order has rejected this request and has held that assessment should be at a value of Rs. 65.26 per kg. At the enhanced rate, the consignment value worked out to about Rs. 27.65 lakhs. The impugned order has confiscated the goods for misdeclaration of value under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act. Of course, with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Order has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act on the appellant. There is a separate penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the second appellant ...
Shree Jagadamba Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT600TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Shree Jagadamba Polymers Ltd., the issue involved is whether Tarpaulins manufactured by them from PP/HDPE fabrics are classifiable under Heading 63.06 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under sub-heading 3926.90 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, fairly mentioned that the issue regarding classification of Tarpaulin has been decided by the Tribunal recently in the case of Gujarat Raffia Inds. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, Final Order No. 26/03-B, dated 14-1-2003 [2003 (153) E.L.T.336 (T)]; that the Tribunal has held that the Tarpaulin made of HDPE is classifiable under Heading 39.26 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that the duty demand is to be requantified in terms of decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T) = 1999 (32) RLT 1 (CEGAT). He, further, submitted that as the classi...
Ralson Carbon Black Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC157Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s Ralson Carbon Black Ltd. is a manufacturer of Carbon Black. They classify the carbon black produced by them under different grades - "Carbon Black - HAF N-330, FEF N -350, GPF N-360, GPF HS N-650 Off Grade, Floor Sweep" etc. The prices also vary according to the grade from Rs. 9000/- per metric tonne for "floor sweep" to Rs. 34,200/- for ISAF - HM N-220 as would be seen from the Table below : Since the goods were liable to duty on ad valorem basis they discharge their duty liabilities also on the basis of the sale price for the relevant grade.2. The impugned order has held that the appellant was misclassifying regular grade goods as "Off Grade" - HAF N - 330 Grade and this has led to short-payment of duty in respect of that Grade. Consequently, duty demand of over Rs. 21 lakhs has been made against the appellants under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is also confiscation of 9 tonnes of carbon black, demand for interest and imposition of penalties o...
Ravinder Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)627; 104(2003)DLT41; 2003(71)DRJ515
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The father of the petitioner was allotted a Tehbazari space/site No. 34, Kishore Market between shop No. 33 Stall No. 53 measuring 10 x 15 ft. in Wadhwa Market in Delhi who established the business of sale and repair of cycles. It is stated that the site is a public read which vests with the respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner's father was asked to vacate the site and he filed a suit for permanent injunction. This litigation was fought till Supreme Court. The grievance of the father of the petitioner, inter alia, was that the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed without even issuance of a show cause notice. The petitioner succeeded in the suit and the appeals but the Supreme Court in terms of its order dated 27th September, 1991 held as under: 'The course spelled out in the judgment under appeal was that the appellant should issue notice to the respondent intimating him that it was proposed to cancel his license and then take su...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Anuj Vohra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(160)ELT92(Del)
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of the present application the applicant seeks modification of the order dated 7th February, 2003 whereby the order dated 14th August 2002 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India was stayed. It was contended before the Court that in terms of Section 129DD(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 the petitioner was not given notice of the revision filed by the applicant against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and as such the impugned currency was released to the applicant/respondent No. 2 on payment of redemption fine and penalty.2. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the applicant/respondent No. 2 has already filed a Writ Petition being CWP No. 8002/2002 in this Court on 10th December, 2002 seeking direction to the Department of Customs to release the impugned currency in terms of order dated 14th August, 2002. The following order was passed in the said Writ Petition on 11th December, 2002 :-'CW No. 8002/2002Issue notice t...
Mahender Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)452; 104(2003)DLT439; 2003(67)DRJ712; 2003(3)SLJ461(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed ofby this order.3. Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar w.e.f. 2.7.1980. Alleging that on 11/12.9.1985 when the petitioner was discharging his duty as Chowkidar, theft of government property costing about Rs. 15,000/- had taken place in the subdivision of the respondent the same was alleged to have been caused due to gross negligence and misconduct of the petitioner and another Chowkidar. After holding a departmental enquiry, the services of the petitioner and other chowkidar were terminated by the respondents. The petitioner and the other chowkidar raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: -'Whether the termination of service of S/Shri Mahender Pal Singh and Mahabir Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? '4. One of...
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Jhalani Tools Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)547; 104(2003)DLT834; 2003(69)DRJ592; [2003]47SCL757(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition seeks the winding up of the respondent Company (hereinafter referred to as `the JTL') by virtue of a Notice dated 25th March, 1997 under Section 434 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') by which the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as `the TISCO') called upon the JTL to make an outstanding payment of Rs. 8,59,41,364.78. 2. TISCO had given working capital to the JTL to the extent of Rs.9 crores and the assistance so given was to be repaid by the JTL in the form of production commission and selling commission besides payment from export orders. As per Section 125 of the Companies Act a charge of Rs. 9 crores was also registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi and Haryana in respect of raw material, unfinished and finished goods and store spares in the JTL units at Faridabad and Kundli in Haryana and Aurangabad and Jalna (Maharashtra). On 3rd July, 1995, TISCO requested the JTL to confirm its outstanding balance of Rs...
Constable/Dvr Garibullah, S/O Shri Habibullah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)665; 104(2003)DLT973; 2003(71)DRJ467; 2004(1)SLJ39(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. This writ petition can be disposed of in view of the submissions made before us by learned counsel for the parties. It is contended that the petitioner had unblemished record of 13 years and only for the charges which were framed against the petitioner, the services of the petitioner was terminated. The respondent framed the following articles of charges against the petitioner :-''STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 800673469 CT (DVR) GARIBULLAH OF NS RESERVE POOL GC, CRPF, NEW DELHI ARTICLE I No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah of NS Reserve Pool, MT, GC, CRPF, while functioning as CT (Dvr) in GC, CRPF, New Delhi, committed an act of gross misconduct/remissness in the discharge of duty/neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the force, in that on 26/5/96, said No. 800673469 CT (Dvr) Garibullah was detailed bonafide Govt. duty with Tata Bus Regn. No. DBP-7919 to carry CRPF Personnel from G...
Bharat Filling Station and anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)694; 104(2003)DLT601
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner No. 2 is an Ex-serviceman. He was Sqn. Leader who participated in 1971 Indo-Pak war and was boarded out because of permanent disability he suffered in the said war. Respondent No. 2, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) has scheme for allotment of petrol pumps i.e. retail outlets on preferential basis to Ex-servicemen and particularly those suffering disabilities while in action. Petitioner No. 2 applied for and was allotted retail outlet at Delhi Palam Road, New Delhi for sale of petrol and petroleum products in the year 1977. He started petrol pump under the name and style of Bharat Filling Station (petitioner No. 1). Initially he was the sole proprietor of the concern which was subsequently converted into a partnership firm.2. An agreement dated 8.2.1978 was executed between the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 for running the aforesaid outlet. The petitioners had been running this petrol pump on the aforesaid outlet since then. However, vi...
Gurnam Singh @ Herjit Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3198; 103(2003)DLT758; 2003(68)DRJ326; 2003(87)ECC586; 2003(1)JCC599
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. By this Criminal Writ Petition No. 933 of 2002 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the detention order bearing No. F. No. 801/29/200-PITNDPS dated 2.3.2002 passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the 'PITNDPS' Act), served on the petitioner on 2.4.2002 together with relevant material. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, Paramjit Singh and co-accused, Tahel Singh, were arrested pursuant to a recovery of 9.66 kg. brown powder from Maruti Zen Car No. HR-01-F-8143 on 5.10.2001. On 11.3.2002 the petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Special Judge PITNDPS Act, New Delhi who vide order dated 27.3.2002 admitted the petitioner and co-accused to bail. On 2.4.2002 a complaint under Sections 21 and 29 PITNDPS Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »