Delhi Court April 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.
Sunlac Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC527
1. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself has to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, 1 allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. The appellants are a SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 32 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. They had opted for the facility of monthly payment of duty. Under that scheme, they had to pay duty for a given calendar month on or before the 15th day of the succeeding month. Under Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, which was being followed by the appellants during the material period, they could utilize for payment of duty on their products, Cenvat credit to the extent available upto the last date of the calendar month in respect of which the duty was paid. When the appellants paid duty on the goods cleared during the months of September to December 2001, they utilized Cenvat credit, on each occasion, in ...
Refnol Resins and Chemicals Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC610
1. In these three appeals filed by M/s. Refnol Resins & Chemicals Limited, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No.12/94-CE, dated 1.3.94 as amended by Notification No. 14/95-CE, dated 16.3.95 is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Textile Softener which is a Lubricating Preparations classifiable under Heading No. 34.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the sample of the impugned product was drawn by the Central Excise Officers and was sent for chemical test for the purpose of ascertaining whether the impugned product is a Lubricating Preparations or not; that the Chemical Examiner, Baroda has given his opinion as "The sample is in the form of off white aqueous pasty mass.It is composed of Hydrocarbon Oil (Mineral Oil), fatty matter, organic surface active agent and other additives. Such compositions is stated to find use to lubricate/soften textile...
J. Prasad Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC643
1. The issue involved in these two appeals arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 225-226/2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is about availment of benefit of exemption as small-scale industry using the trade mark of other person.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. J.Prasad Polymers, Appellant No. 1, is a partnership firm, engaged in the manufacture of PVC shoes and sports shoes; that they came into existence in the year 1990; that as they are a small-scale unit, they are availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-Central Excise, dated 1-3-93 and its successor notifications; that they sell their products affixed with the brand names, Sundar Climbers, Sundar Dewana, Sundar Mastana, Sundar Raja, Sundar Naresh, Sunder Don, etc.; that the Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 14/2000 dated 30-3-2000, disallowed the benefits of small-scale exemption notification, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on both the Appellants...
Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT352TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited, is whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condonable or not.2. Shri P.K. Sahu, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Fertilizer and Ammonia; that they use Natural Gasoline Liquified (NGL) which they were receiving against CT-2 certificate from ONGC who supply the same through HPCL under Notification No. 75/84-CE.; that the Range Suptd. Incharge of ONGC directed them to stop the supply of NGL to the Appellants against CT-2 certificate; that on account of this HPCL supplied them NGL at much higher rate; that the supply of NGL concessional rate against CT-2 certificate was restored on 15-11-95; that they filed two refund claims on 2-6-1995 and 29-6-1995 before the Asstt. Commissioner who rejected the refund claims on 11-12-1995; that the Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by them directed the Asstt.Commissioner to consider the refund claims de...
Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC799
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.10.2001 vide which the adjudicating authority had disallowed the modvat credit and imposed penalty on the appellants as detailed therein.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants availed modvat credit on various capital goods and parts as detailed in the show cause notice under Rule 57Q of the Rules. They were issued show cause notice for reversal of the modvat credit on the ground that the goods declared by them in the declarations filed under Rule 57T from time to time could not be treated as capital goods under Rule 57Q. They were served with as many as 16 show cause notices for different periods starting from December 96 up to August 97 during which modvat credit of various amounts as detailed in the impugned order itself was availed by them, to show cause as to why the modvat credit availed by them should not be recovered from them. The appellants, however, contested those n...
Refnol Resins and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT277TriDel
1. In these three appeals filed by M/s. Refnol Resins & Chemicals Limited, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No.12/94-CE., dated 1-3-94 as amended by Notification No. 14/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Textile softener which is a Lubricating Preparation classifiable under Heading No. 34,03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the sample of the impugned product was drawn by the Central Excise Officers and was sent for chemical test for the purpose of ascertaining whether the impugned product is a Lubricating Preparation or not; that the Chemical Examiner, Baroda has given his opinion as "The sample is in the form of off white aqueous pasty mass.It is composed of Hydrocarbon Oil (Mineral Oil), fatty matter, organic surface active agent and other additives. Such compositions is stated to find use to lubricate/soften textil...
O.P. Arora Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC102
1. The 1st respondent-Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 33/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against, (1) M/s. VSA Ledermode; (2) Mr. O.P. Arora (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant/2nd defendant'); and (3) Mr. Vishal Arora for the recovery of Rs. 4,19,80,709/- with subsequent interest and costs jointly and severally from them. The respondent-Bank also prayed that in the event of their failure to pay the amount, the hypothecated goods, machinery and the mortgaged property be sold for realisation of the amount. The respondent-Bank further prayed for the attachment before judgment of the mortgaged property. According to the respondent-Bank, the 1st defendant is a firm, of which defendants 2 and 3 are partners, engaged in the business of import and export of readymade leather garments, and for that business the respondent-Bank granted the loan facilities as indicated in the O.A., for which ...
Sudhanshu Gupta, Vs. Airports Authority of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)743; 105(2003)DLT620; 2003(69)DRJ722; 2004(1)SLJ105(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1.The petitioners in these six writ petitions were employed as Air Traffic Controllers with the Airport Authority of India, i.e., respondent No. 1 and are aggrieved by their dismissal from service without holding an enquiry on the ground that in the interest of security of the Authority and public interest, it was not expedient to hold an enquiry. 2.The Cadre of Air Traffic Controllers has three posts of Assistant Aerodrome Officer, Aerodrome Officer and Senior Aerodrome Officer and the petitioners were recruited through a regular process of selection. These Air Traffic Controllers perform critical functions of managing the control of air traffic and the entire communication systems of the airports including communication with the aircraft in air, landing and take off of the aircrafts. Thus, safety of the aircrafts is dependent on the performance of these Air Traffic Controllers. 3.The job profile of the Air Traffic Controllers has been summarized and set out in ...
R. Bharat Kumar and Co. Vs. Kamal Synthetic Textile Market and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)120; 104(2003)DLT968; 2003(27)PTC33(Del); 2003(2)RAJ505
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Plaintiff claims to be the proprietor of the trade mark `Anuradha' being used by it in respect of textile materials and claims to have adopted this trade mark in the year 1984 and also using the same since then yet the registration of the trademark was made on 13th July, 1988. In support of the use of the trade mark the plaintiff has produced invoices and the statement of Annual Sales for the period from 1.7.1985 to 31.3.1994. Defendant No. 1 is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and using textile materials under the trademark `anuradha' and operates from Bhilwara . Plaintiff's trade mark starts with capital letter `A' whereas that of the defendant with small letter `a'. Defendant No. 2 is the dealer of defendant No. 1 having its establishment in Delhi. According to the plaintiff its trade mark has established goodwill and reputation over the years as to the quality of goods and the use of the deceptively similar trade mark by the defendants is a source of...
Y.P. Narula Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)213; 105(2003)DLT565; 2003(71)DRJ707
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner had filed this petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to issue the deed of conveyance with regard to the property in question in terms of the application of the petitioner filed on 25.3.1994 and for quashing the demand made vide the letter dated 9.5.1994. While the matter was pending, the Court on 13.5.1997 directed the respondents to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass an order in accordance with law. On such directions being given, the respondents after hearing the petitioner passed the order dated 13.5.1997 and pursuant to that order made a demand on 5.9.1997 reducing the earlier demand by about Rs. 57,000/-. By the demand letter dated 5.9.1997, the respondents have claimed damages for unauthorised construction in the property and enhanced ground rent for the period 31.12.1987 to 13.4.1994. Pursuant to this demand having been made, the writ petition was amended and the petitioner has challenged ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »