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.
Gilard Radio Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT199TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of T.V. and Electrical Components and were availing the benefit of the Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. From 18-9-2000, the appellants started availing the benefit of another Notification No.8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 instead of working under Notification No.9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that they cannot avail the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 when they were already availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 and differential duty was also demanded. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 and also confirmed the demand and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed.Appellants filed the appeal and the same was dismissed.2. The contention of the appellants is that appellants...
Court on Its Own Vs. Sh. Vidya Nand Sharma
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ1CAT
1. We have heard the petitioner in M.A. 534/2003 and Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned standing Counsel for the respondents. We are unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner that any ground has been made out by him to allow the prayer in the M.A. to stay the proceedings of CP (Crl.) 3/2001, on the ground that he is facing criminal charge, in the Criminal Court. In this view of the matter, M.A. 534/2003 is dismissed.2. We have heard the alleged contemner Mr. Vidya Nand Sharma and Mr.Ajesh Luthra, learned standing Counsel who has been appointed by the Court in the matter.3. By order dated 5.12.2001 in R.A. 337 of 2001 and M.A. 1895/2001, while dismissing the Review Application, the Division Bench of the Tribunal had made certain observations and directed notice to be issued against the applicant to present himself before the Bench for further consideration in the matter. The relevant observations of the Court are as follows: "Use of the words "on above applicant hereby allege that t...
Sumita @ Manto Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)9; 2003CriLJ2928; 104(2003)DLT366; 2003(68)DRJ253; 2003(87)ECC828
Khan, J.1. Though petitioner had served her detention period, but her counsel still wants a verdict on the validity of her detention order, perhaps to come out of its fall-out. 2. Petitioner was first arrested under Sections 21 of NDPS Act on 17.9.2001 after having been allegedly found in possession of 500 gms. of smack. He was eventually detained by order dated 4.1.2002 under Section 3(1) of PIT-NDPS Act to prevent her from engaging in possession and transportation of narcotics drugs in future. The detention order was served on her on 31.1.2002 Along with grounds of detention. She made representation against it to the Advisory Board and the detaining authority which was rejected by order dated 21.3.2002. Her detention was lastly confirmed by order dated 9.4.2002 which is now under challenge in this petition. 3. Though petitioner has challenged the order on several grounds, her counsel has pressed in service only one ground, i.e., that there was not cogent material before the detaining...
Pawan Bajaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)192; 104(2003)DLT407; 2003(68)DRJ273; 2003(2)JCC648
Khan, J.1. Petitioner was arrested at IGI Airport on 25th April, 2002 and was produced before the Magistrate on 27th April, 2002 for alleged offences under Customs Act and that of FEMA. He was granted bail in this on 14th June, 2002 and was eventually detained under Section 3(i) of COFEPOSA on 5th August, 2002. He was communicated the grounds of detention also on the same day. He made representation against his detention to the detaining authority on 29th August, 2002, which was rejected by order dated 11th September, 2002. He again made a representation dated 23rd September, 2002 to the Chairman of the Advisory Board and also to the Central Government dated 21st October, 2002, asking for re-constitution of the Advisory Board and for revocation of his detention which also suffered the same fate. His detention order was confirmed later and communicated to him on 10th October, 2002. 2. Petitioner has challenged his detention on several grounds. He firstly complains that his detention was...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)419; 104(2003)DLT151; 2003(68)DRJ284
Khan, J.1. Whether impugned judgment and decree for recovery of possession of Flat Nos. 12 & 11 at Connaught Place, New Delhi could have been passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is the question. 2. The suit premises was taken on rent by Appellant from predecessor in interest of respondent (M/s. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust) vide Lease Deed dated 30.7.1965 for two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,790/-. The lease was to commence from 27.5.1965 and expire on 30.3.1967. Appellant, however, continued to remain in possession after the expiry of lease on 30.3.1967 also. Meanwhile, pursuant to an amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act, the suit premises fell out of its ambit and the Trust filed a suit No. 191/98 for recovery of possession and damages and mesne profits. The Trust was later substituted by Respondent who had purchased the suit property meanwhile. 3. Appellant filed its written statement raising the preliminary objection that the suit suffered from lack of cause of action and th...
Kundan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT210; 2003(68)DRJ125; 2003(2)JCC632
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) has been filed by the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 29/2001 registered at PS Anti Corruption Branch, New Delhi under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated are, that the petitioner is working as a Joint Director (Slum & JJ), a department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The residents of Jhuggi Clusters at Gautam Puri were proposed to be shifted to an alternative site and as such, a scheme was formulated to ascertain and verify the bona fide residents of the JJ Cluster at Gautam Puri so that they could be shifted to Bhalswa where they were to be provided alternative plots. The FIR referred to above made allegations against the petitioner and other officials of the Slum & JJ Department that they wer...
Commissioner of Police and ors. Vs. Om Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ172; 2004(3)SLJ272(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. In this writ petition by the Union of India a challenge is laid to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) on 22 April 2002 in OA No.1978/2001. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the applications filed by the respondents and has directed the Commissioner of Police to release back wages to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order.2. The applicants before the Tribunal had earlier filed three separate applications challenging the orders of punishment awarded to them on the basis of the departmental inquiries. The said applications were allowed by the Tribunal quashing the orders of punishment. While doing so, the Tribunal had directed the department to accord consequential benefits to the applicants.3. In compliance of the said orders the department passed order dated 2 March 2001, allowing all the consequential benefits except the back wages f...
Directorate of Revenue Int. Vs. Rajinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ692; 2003(1)JCC565
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Through this petition which his under section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seeks further time to complete its evidence in a custom case. The case relates to smuggling of gold. It seems that earlier also ACMM has closed the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 7.8.2002 against which petitioner herein had filed Crl.R. 942/02 which was disposed of vide this Court's order dated 15.11.2002 which reads as under :-'This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 7th August, 2002 whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed on account of its failure to produce S. Parmeshwaran who is stated to be posted abroad. The record shows that the prosecution has been granted several opportunities to conclude its evidence but the/case was adjourned on account of the absence of the counsel for the respondent through S. Parmeshwaran was present for cross examination. Be that as it may the fact remains that the material witness S. Par...
Neer Shree Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT418TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal, filed by Neer Shree Cement, is whether Capital Goods Credit is available to them under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the Diesel Locomotive Engine.2.1 Shri P. Malik, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture cement and have taken Modvat credit of the duty paid on diesel locomotive engine, being a material handling equipment; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 51/2001 dated 2-7-2001 disallowed the Modvat credit on the following two grounds : (i) Since in this case the transportation work done by the Diesel Locomotive Engine can not be treated as process of handling of raw material in relation to manufacturing process integrally connected with further operation, leading to manufacture, the said engine can not be treated as capital goods as per the provisions of Rule 57Q(1) as existed at the relevant time. As such no Modvat credit on the said Engine is admissible, and (i...
Guide Valve Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1020TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Guide Valve Industries, the issue involved is whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is imposable on them.2. The Appellants under their letter dated 17-3-2003 have requested to set aside the penalty and allow their appeal on merits after considering the sub-missions made therein. We, therefore, heard Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned SDR for the Revenue and perused the submissions made by the Appellants. They have mentioned that they are engaged in the manufacture of Valve and Cocks; that on 8-10-97 Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises for verification of raw material received by them from M/s. Aggarwal Metal Co. under invoice No. 235, dated 6-10-97; that the officers seized Copper Alloy Ingots valued at Rs. 1,04,849/- received under the said invoice on the ground that the goods were manufactured by M/s. Harsh Metal Co. and had been cleared without payment of duty; that two Show Cause Notices had been received by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »