Delhi Court April 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.
Daewoo Motors (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1008TriDel
1. In this appeal M/s. Daewoo Motors India Ltd are only challenging the penalty imposed on them by the Commissioner under the impugned Order.2. Shri P.K. Mittal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactures motor vehicles and parts thereof and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs as well as capital goods; that they have filed necessary declaration both for inputs and capital goods in time; that they have filed RT 12 returns along with copies of invoices on the basis of which Modvat credit had been availed of by them; that during the course of audit, the audit party alleged that Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 78,45,141/- has been wrongly availed of; that the appellants had debited the entire amount during the period October, 1998 to July, 1999 though the show cause notice was issued to them only on 14-3-2000. He, further, submitted that the Department could not allege any suppression or fraud or wilful misstatement with an intent to evade the payment of...
Coolwell Automobiles Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT940TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellants on 17-10-95 and 13-2-96, Both show cause notices were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority and demand was dropped and penalty was imposed vide order dated 1-3-2000.3. Appellants also received another Adjudication Order dated 29-11-99 whereby demand in respect of show cause notice dated 13-2-96 was confirmed. Appellants filed appeal against this Adjudication order which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order.5. The contention of the appellants is that when the demand was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority; therefore, the other Adjudicating Authority cannot confirm the demand.6. Revenue is not disputing the fact of issuance of two show cause notices. Both were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Aut...
Sharp Cargo Movers Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC686
1. In this appeal, the appellants who are CHA, have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 4.7.2002 vide which the Commissioner has declined their request for renewal of the Licence.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants were holder of a regular Licence No. 0099/93 which was valid upto 30.6.99. They were, however, found involved in the fraudulent export of ready-made garments made by certain fictitious exporters, as in all those exports the shipping bills were filed by them. The goods which were exported were highly over invoiced and this fact was in the knowledge of the appellants and Shri Satish Gupta, Managing Director of the appellants, even admitted this fact. After finding the appellants guilty of entering into criminal conspiracy for availing wrongful benefit of drawback in the names of fictitious and non-existent export companies, the Licence of the appellants was suspended vide Order dated 24.6.99, for having contravened the provisions o...
intec Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC706
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Intec Corpn is whether the electrical control panel manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 85.37 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff or is classifiable under Heading 84.15 alongwith the roof top mounted package unit of air conditioners manufactured and supplied by them to Indian Railways.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, manufactured roof top mounted package unit of air-conditioners for the Indian Railways in conformity with the specifications provided by Railway Design Standard Organisation: that the said organization has also issued design specifications for electrical control panel meant for Air conditioners; that sometimes Indian Railways floats tenders calling for manufacture of electrical control panels also alongwith the air-conditioners; that however the specifications for both air-conditioners and control panels are individual and separate: that the Assistant Commiss...
J.K. Impex and anr. and Mangali Impex Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT605; 2003(71)DRJ709; 2003(89)ECC412; 2004(167)ELT270(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are engaged in the activities of import and export. For the purpose of carrying out the activities of import and export, it is required to have IE Code No.(Import and Export Code No.). The petitioner in CWP No.4938/2001 applied for and was granted IE Code No.0598054685. The petitioner in CWP No.4945/2001 was, likewise, given IE Code No.0593065336.2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging Advice memo dated 23rd March, 2001 issued by the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. This Advice memo is issued in respect of four firms including both the petitioners as well and reads as under:'Subsequent to investigations of fraudulent exports of goods and misdeclaration of the description as well as value of the goods it has been decided to place the following firm/persons on advice memo. All licensing branches are hereby advised not to all the following firms and persons to avail of CCS/licenses of any...
Mr. Siddhantha Sharma and anr. Vs. Kesha Investment Pvt. Limited and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)210; 106(2003)DLT722; 2003(69)DRJ49; [2003]46SCL52(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an application, filed by the Chairman, Royal Airways Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the RAL'), an independent Director on the Board of Directors of RAL, formerly known as Modiluft Limited. The respondents 1 to 4 are said to be the Group Companies of Shri S.K. Modi, who is respondent No. 5 herein and was said to be formerly in the management of the Company at the time when actions complained of in the application were committed. This application inter alias seeks a restraint on transfer of the shares enumerated in paragraph 9 of the application and further restraint upon the exercise of voting and other rights in respect of such shares. This application also seeks a declaration that the Board Resolution dated 30th July, 1996 making the disputed shares fully paid up is void.2. Reliance is placed by the applicants in support of this application on the findings of a decision of this Court, rendered on 28th January, 2003 in CA 1852/2002 in respect of shares...
Mini Mathew Vs. Thomas Mathew
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)370; 104(2003)DLT760; II(2003)DMC33; 2003(68)DRJ481
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition by the wife under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (substituted by Act 51 of 2001) seeking dissolution of marriage onthe ground of cruelty.2. Put briefly the facts pleaded by the wife are as under: The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 17.8.1992 at St. Mary's Church, Vettimukal, Kerala according to Christian religious rites. Soon after the marriage, parties stayed together for about a week in Kerala and due to want of extended leave of the respondent the parties returned to Delhi and stayed for a short while at the residence of the respondent's brother at E-440, Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi. Petitioner alleges that within 20 days of her marriage, she came to know that the respondent was making inquiries at Delhi about her character and morals from some of her friends and her friends in turn informed her. On questioning as to suspicious nature of the respondent the petitioner was beaten up mercilessly. However, this did...
Mahinder Singh Oberio and ors., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)617; 105(2003)CLT681; 2003(71)DRJ712
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, I would be deciding the above mentioned writ petitions as common pleas and similar facts arise for consideration. Besides all the petitioners are seeking protection against eviction and directions for alternate allotment. C.W.Nos.3670/2001 and 4722/96 have been taken as the lead cases. However, for facility of reference, the particulars of the petitioners and locations of their respective premises are given below. CW 3670/1996 2. Mahinder Singh Oberoi petitioner No.7 Along with 25 other petitioners claimed to be in occupation of different shops in the market known as Wellesly Mess Market, New Delhi. The petitioners assail the impugned order dated 17.9.96 passed by the Additional Distt. Judge, by which he dismissed batch of 31 appeals, preferred by the petitioners and others against the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Pet...
Virtus Dordrecht B.V. and anr. Vs. Mr. Vikram Bhargav and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)321; 105(2003)DLT394; 2003(69)DRJ447
R.C. Jain, J. 1. The plaintiffs have moved this application under Order I Rule 10(4) read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to implead Smt. Angoori Devi wife of Shri Jai Prakash, resident of C-32, AFFCC, Neb Sarai, New Delhi as a defendant (defendant No.6) in the present suit and for an injunction restraining her (Smt. Angoori Devi) from dealing with, selling, transferring, mortgaging, disposing off, alienating, creating third party interests in any manner or parting with possession of the portion of land transferred in her name by defendant No.1 i.e. Khasra No.562/462/83 (100.9 Bighas) and a part of Khasra No.565/462/83 (88 Bighas) of the suit property.2. The germane facts which need to be noticed for the disposal of the present application are the plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of US Dollars 5,64,895 (Rs.2,14,66,030/-), declaration and injunction against defendants No.1 to 5. The allegations made in the suit being that a...
Pawan Kumar and Ganga Bishan Gupta Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)265; 107(2003)DLT726
A.K. Sikri, J.1. These writ petitions arise in identical circumstance and same question of law is involved. thereforee they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. for the sake of convenience, facts from CWP No. 1548/2000 are noted.3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Sh. Maman Singh, Smt. Hoshiari Devi, Tara Chand, Ram Narain and Smt. Sarjo residents of village Bamnoli, Delhi were allotted certain lands in that village, i.e. Khasra Nos. 198 (2-12), 204/2 (5-3), Khasra Number 221/2(3-13), 217 (541) and 200 (4-17) respectively. Since there is a dispute about the nature of these allotments, this aspect shall be adverted to at the appropriate stage. What is admitted position is that these persons moved applications under Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') in the Court of SDM/ RA praying that the Gaon Sabha be directed to admit them as Bhumidars of the aforesaid land. These applications were decided in their favor holding that they ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »