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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pyramid Software and Tech.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT239TriDel
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the value of carry bags and AC-DC static converters is not to be included in the assessable value of automatic data processing machines manufactured by the respondents.2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents was received back with the postal remarks 'left', therefore, the appeals are being taken up in the absence of the respondents.4. Carry bags, which were supplied with every automatic data processing machine (computer), were separately mentioned in the invoice. The computers, in question, are laptops, which are carried in these bags, along with accessories of computer. As the respondents are clearing the laptops with carry bags in the course of trade, the value of carry bags is not to be included in the assessable value of the laptop computer.5. In respect of AC-DC static converters, ...
S.T.L. Exports Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC624
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are 100 per cent EOUs. They were bringing mild steel pipes and zinc without payment of Central Excise Duty/Customs Duty for exporting galvanised mild steel (MS) pipes and were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.1/95-CE dated 4.1.95. Appellants cleared galvanised pipes for Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) without payment of duty. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking for duty on the galvanised M.S. pipes cleared for DTA. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed.4. The contention of the appellants is that they were only undertaking the process of galvanising, which does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.5. Appellants were bringing MS pipes and zinc without payment of duty under Notification No. 1...
Commissioner of Customs, Icd Vs. KeihIn Penalfa Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC545
1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Electronic Automatic Regulator imported by M/s. Keihin Penalfa classifiable under sub-heading 9032.89, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order or is classifiable under sub-heading 8543.89 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by the Revenue. Shri M.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative submitted that sub-heading 9032.89 covers other instruments and apparatus of Heading 9032 which applies to Automatic regulator or controlling instruments and apparatus; that as per Note 6 to Chapter 90, Heading 9032 applies only to (a) Instruments and apparatus for automatic controlling the flow, level, pressure or other variables of liquids or gases or for automatically controlling temperature, whether or not their operation depends on an electrical phenomenon which varies according to the factor to be automatically controlled; and (b) Automatic regulator of electrical qua...
Bhilwara Melba De Witte Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC468Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 133-134/2002, dated 28-2-2002, the issue involved is whether the Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on nylon filament yarn is available to M/s. Bhilwara Melba De Witte Ltd. 2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture laminated fabrics; that the inputs, namely, Nylon Filament yarn, purchased by them on payment of duty from M/s.Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals, Surat, is delivered directly to their job workers situated in Surat with a View to avoid unnecessary transportation of the yarn from purchaser to their factory at Mordi and again back to the premises of job workers at Surat; that the job workers converted Nylon Filament yarn into knitted Fabric which on receipt by the Appellants is laminated and is moved on payment of duty; that the Cenvat credit taken by them on the Nylon Filament yarn has been disallowed to them on the ground that the job workers were not operating under Notific...
Oswal Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT354TriDel
1. The applicants pray for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. Examined the records and heard both the sides. Officers of Central Excise visited the applicants' factory in December, 1997 and found, on stock verification, an excess of 203 bags of sugar vis-a-vis RG 1 recorded balance, and they seized the goods. The Department by show cause notice proposed to confiscate the goods and impose penalty on the party under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The proposal was contested. The original authority ordered confiscation of the goods with option to the party to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. It also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on them. In the appeal preferred by them against the order of the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's decision on merits but reduced the quantum of fine and penalty to Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1 lakh respectively. The learned C...
R.G.L. Convertors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC525
1. The issue involved in these three appeals arising out two Adjudication Orders is whether the process of printing and slitting of cork tipping base paper into printed cork tipping cigarette paper (PCT) amounts to manufacture.2. Shri M. Chandrashekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the printing and slitting of Cork Tipping Paper (CTP) which is a base paper on job work basis; that the CTP in jumbo rolls of width of 470 mm to 520 mm and length 12,100 metres (approximately) is received by them from various cigarette manufacturers; that after printing, the CTP is slit (cut) into strips of various sizes, namely, width of 35 mm to 48 mm and length ranging from 2000 to 3000 metres and the same is returned to the cigarette manufacturers; that the issue of excisability of printed cork tipping paper has been set on rest by the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy, 2000 (117) ELT 333 (T) wherein it has been held that "the pr...
S.N. Rai Vs. Council of Scientific and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ82CAT
1. S.N. Rai the applicant, a retired pensioner, is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for counting of his past service rendered in two Public Sector Undertakings. He has impugned the letter dated 1/5.9.2000 (Annexure-A) and letter dated 28.2.2001 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondents in this regard.2. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Pleadings and the material papers and documents placed on record including the written submissions filed by the applicant and also the respondents have been perused.The applicant joined the service of National Coal Development Corporation (NCDC, in short, which is now Coal India Ltd.) on 2.3.1963.Later he joined the Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI, in short) as Accounts Assistant with effect from 7.10.1966 vide Office Order No. 219 dated 15.10.1966 (Annexure A-1). Thereafter, the NCDC issued a letter dated 3/4.4.1967 indicating the service rendered in the said Corporation by the applicant as from 2.3.1963 to 3.1/0.1966 and tran...
Sh. Virender Kumar JaIn Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and ors. and Municipal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)641; 2003(2)ARBLR150(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT557; [2003]45SCL300(Delhi)
R.C. Jain, J. 1. These petitions involve similar facts and raise common question of law and, thereforee, it is proposed to dispose them of by means of this common order.2. The facts in OMP No. 82/94 being that in response to the notice inviting tender by the respondent the petitioner submitted his offer on 26th March, 1992 which was valid for 90 days. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.15,600/- as earnest money and the amount involved in tender was to the tune of Rs.14,30,761.25. Pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court dated 15th May, 1992, all quarries in Delhi were ordered to be closed with a view to control pollution in the city and consequently no stones were to be crushed. On 25th May, 1992, the petitioner sent his revised offer and requested that if revised offer was not acceptable, the earlier offer be deemed to be withdrawn. The respondent however, did not accept the revised rates and ignoring the modified offer issued a letter of intent No. 390 dated 25th May, 1992. A...
Mrs. Sarla Ahuja and anr. Vs. Mr. Kundan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)690; 103(2003)DLT635; 2004(72)DRJ508
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. This is a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the suit premises 2372-C, Shadi Khampur, Mandirwali Gali, near Gurudwara, New Delhi-8 Along with certain moveable properties including one refrigerator, three ceiling fans and other electrical fixtures and household furniture. There is also a claim for mesne profits/damages w.e.f. 1.5.98 and up to the date of actual handing over of the possession by the defendant to the plaintiffs.2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the suit premises. Plaintiff No. 2 is a partnership firm of which Plaintiff No. 1 is one of the partners.3. The defendant was an employee of plaintiff No. 2 firm, and as such was the known to the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant is stated to have worked with the plaintiff in various capacities, and lastly in a managerial and administrative capacity drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,500/-.4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant was looking for residential ac...
Satya Pal Sud, Ex-brigadier Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Chie ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)774; 2003CriLJ3842; 104(2003)DLT35; 2003(71)DRJ514; 2003(3)SLJ450(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 5th July, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge. Mr. E.X. Joseph, learned senior counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the extreme penalty imposed by the General Court Martial of cashiering and sentence for rigorous imprisonment for one year, the finding of General Court Martial as confirmed by the confirming authority is liable for strict judicial review.2. At the outset it was contended that there was non-compliance of Rule 97 (2) by the General Court Martial as notice of seven days, was not given to the appellant to engage a counsel, although the prosecution had engaged a lawyer. It was contended before us that the appellant was under arrest from the day on which the trial started and no opportunity, much less an opportunity of seven days notice, was given to the appellant. It was also contended that non-compliance of Rule 97 of the Army Rules has resulted in serious prejudice which was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »