Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramlala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT993TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 14-9-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the refund of Rs. 26,697/- as time-barred.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are the manufacturers of V.P. Sugar. Under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, they are required to sell fixed quantity of sugar as 'Levy Sugar' and rest of the sugar, as Tree Sale Sugar'. In the month of November, 1998, the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, vide letter dated 28-10-1998 took 80.9 M.T. of sugar on loan basis from the appellants from their 'Free Sale Quota', as 'Levy Sugar'. The appellants were asked to pay the differential duty on the sugar as 'Levy Sugar' and accordingly the payment of Rs. 26,697/- through PLA was made by them on 10-3-1999. However, later on, the Ministry through letter dated 13-7-1999 returned the said loan quantity of sugar, by makin...
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC76
1. In this appeal, field by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 305/79-CE dated 4.12.97 is available in respect of Caprolactum imported by the Appellants.2. Shri Ashok Sagar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture, inter alia, Nylon Filament Yarn for the manufacture of which they imported Caprolactum from abroad; that for the purpose of levying additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 305/79-CE dated 4.12.79 which provided partial exemption from payment of duty, if manufactured from duty paid benzene; that the Asst. Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 29/2001 dated 1.8.2001, confirmed the demand of duty holding that the benefit of Notification No. 305/79 was not available to the Caprotactum: that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order has rejected their appeal. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that as per Sectio...
Flistex Magnetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT170TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common Adjudication Order.3. Appellants filed the appeals before the CEGAT against the duty demand and for imposition of penalty and the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 251-253/2001-B, dated 8-5-2001 [2001 (135) E.L.T. 857 (Tri.)] remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to recalculate the duty liability in respect of the goods in question on depreciated value.4. The present impugned order is passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal.5. The contention of the appellants is that in spite of finding given by the Tribunal that duty liability should be recalculated on depreciated value of the goods, the Commissioner of Central Excise in the present impugned order had not allowed any depreciation in respect of capital goods.6. We find that the Tribunal while remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority held that the goods in question are liable for confiscation but agreed with the contention of the appellants t...
Aditi Foams Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT351TriDel
2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flexible foam sheets and were availing benefit of the modvat credit. On 13.6.1998 fire accident took place in the factory particularly in the production department. On account of the fire, certain inputs as well as final products were destroyed. The appellants filed an application for remission of duty which was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise earlier vide the impugned order.3. The application was rejected on the ground that the appellants sent an intimation regarding fire accident late an fire took place due to short circuit and the same cannot be construed as natural cause for loss.4. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants informed the Revenue through telegram on the date when the incident of fire took place and the same was received by the divisional office on 15.6.98.This fact was not denied by the Revenue. As the appellants had informed the Revenue in respect of the fire accident in the factory on the...
Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)129; 104(2003)DLT393; 2003(68)DRJ247
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) seeks quashing of the FIR registered vide RC No. 56(A) of 96 dated 9th July, 1996 under Section 120-B and 109 IPC read with Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only). It is also prayed that the report under Section 173 of the Code and the cognizance taken by the Court of learned Special Judge, Delhi in pursuance thereof may also be quashed. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated are, that the respondent-CBI received a source information that the accused mentioned in Column No. 1 had entered into a conspiracy during the period December, 1993 to May, 1994 to obtain illegal gratification for a public servant for providing NOC to M/s. Jagjiwan Co-operative House Building Society Limited to start building activity. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspirac...
Saood Ahmed Siddiqui and Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)185; 104(2003)DLT2000; 2003(68)DRJ407; 2003(2)JCC637
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. These two petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) are for grant of bail to the petitioners who are facing trial in case FIR No. 43/2000 under Sections 420/409/406/468/471/120-B IPC registered at PS New Friends Colony, New Delhi and investigated by Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, New Delhi. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these two petitions, briefly stated, are that the petitioner Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Al-Falah Group of Companies and petitioner Saood Ahmed Siddiqui was one of its Directors. According to the prosecution in furtherence of a criminal consepiracy, both the petitioners and their co-accused induced a large number of investors to make deposits in their companies. The amount alleged to be cheated/mis-appropriated is alleged to be about Rs. 7.5 crores. One complainant K.R. Singh alone, who has been examined as PW1 and has fully suppo...
Hauz Khas Neighborhood Association Vs. Archaeological Survey of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)687
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1.Ancient monuments are national heritage and it is the social responsibility of any civilization to protect such monuments. It was with this avowed object The Ancient Monuments And Archaeological Sites And Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') was brought into force.2.Section 2 of the said Act is the definition section and section 2(i) and 2(j) define 'protected area' and 'protected monument' as under :-'2. Definitions. (i) 'protected area' means any archaeological site and remains which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act; (j) 'protected monument' means an ancient monument which is declared to be of national importance by or under this Act.'3.Section 38 of the said Act confers power on the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act, which had to be duly notified. Section 38(2)(a) of the said Act is as follows :-'38. Power to make rules. (2) In particular, and without prejudi...
Geetanjali Woolens Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Pearl Inter Continental
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ300; 2003(2)JCC1045
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of two connected revision petitions being Crl. Rev. 697/2002 & Crl. Rev. 698/2002. Both revision petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 25th June, 2002 passed by Shri Rajender Kumar, MM, Delhi under Section 205 read with Section 317 Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to these revision petitions are that the respondent herein filed a criminal complaint under Sections 405/406/420/120-B, IPC and also under Section 193, IPC against the petitioners. After recording the pre-evidence, learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners under Sections 405/406/420/120-B. IPC by order dated 2nd June, 2001. When the case was takenup on 25th June, 2002 application for permanent exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of accused persons namely Surinder Kumar Goel and Virender Goel who are petitioners No. 2 and 3 in these revisions petitions. It was pleaded in the application that the accused are resident of...
Rajiv Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ78
R.C. Chopra, J. Crl. M. (M) No. 1274 of 2003 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been declared proclaimed offender in a Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act In spite of the fact that his whereabouts were known to the complainant and he being a Government servant, his whereabouts could be easily ascertained by the complainant for getting him served. 2. Let the petitioner appear before the Trial Court and explain the circumstances under which he was not in a position to appear before the Court and was declared a proclaimed offender. Considering the nature of offence, the Trial Court is expected to take an indulgent view in the matter and see that no injustice is done to the petitioner. Let the petitioners appear before the Trial Court. 3. No further directions are required to be issued. The petition stands disposed of. Crl M. No. 1629 of 2003 Dismissed as infructuous. Copy dusty. ...
Hotel Marina Vs. Sushil Kumar Raut and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)414; 104(2003)DLT588; 2003(2)RAJ395
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The dispute between the parties is governed by an arbitration clause which reads thus :'Any dispute between you and owner's Project Manager /Resident Engineer regarding true interpretation of this work order/contract or about any other matter, payment, etc. will be referred to Mr. R.A. Aggarwal, Chief Engineer of the Company for his sole arbitration. He may act himself or may appoint any person to act as a Sole Arbitrator. Decision given by the Arbitration shall be final, conclusive and binding on both the parties,'2. A request for arbitration of dispute which had arisen between the parties was made by the respondents on 24.6.2000. The request was made to Shri S.B. Mehta, Managing Partner of Hotel Marina. This request appears to have been forwarded to the Appointing Authority Shri R.A. Aggarwal as envisaged in the arbitration clause who instead of acting as an Arbitrator himself appointed Shri R.K. Mehra as the Sole Arbitrator by his letter dated 4.7.2000. Immediat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »