Delhi Court May 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.
Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT3
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to prescribe the norms and the premises for manufacture of packed drinking water, has given rise to these petitions.2. The petitioners are all manufacturers of packed drinking water and are running the units within the jurisdiction of the respondent MCD. Respondent No. 4 Bureau of Indian Standards stated to be the Competent Authority under the rules framed in terms of Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the PFA Act') to certify the standard, conditions of preparation of packaged drinking water as also its processing and manufacturing. Respondent No. 5 Union of India issued a notification in the Gazette of India dated 29th September, 2000 amending the rules for the same through Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 2000 to lay down the standards for the packaged drinking water (other than mineral water).3. The petitioners...
J.C. Mehra Vs. Kusum Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT506
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. One Pushpawati acquired the lessee-rights of plot No. 50, Sukhdev Vihar, Near Okhla Bus Deport, New Delhi-110025. A small house was constructed on the said plot. The same was let out to the petitioner. The property was sold to the respondent on power of attorney sale basis on 12th August, 1993 for a consideration of Rs. 7,75,000/-. Customary set of documents were executed. Thereafter a formal conveyance deed was executed on 10th March, 1995 in favor of the respondent. On 31st May, 1999, an eviction petition was filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner sought leave to contest. Leave to contest was rejected on 3rd November, 1999 and order for eviction was passed. The petitioner assailed the order in CR 449/2000, which was allowed and leave to contest was granted to the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the Controller. By order dated 18th February, 2003, the learned ARC ordered eviction. Six months' time was granted to the petitioner for vacat...
A.K. Goenka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(71)DRJ685; 2003(89)ECC645
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. One M/s. ZapchastExports appear to have imported certain stock of spare parts of Russian tractors in India. Such stock was stored in a bonded warehouse for meeting 'on the shelf requirements' of customers against customers own import license as per provisions of the Import Trade Control Act. The goods were alleged to have been offered to the petitioner at a discount to the extent of 80% of the C.I.F. Value of the importers. Petitioner purchased the goods against Invoice Nos. 190 and 211 and paid customs duty of Rs. 20,818.63 paise against the same. The goods were purchased by the petitioner on 26.9.1978. In or about 1980-1981, the petitioner appears to have filed application for refund of excess customs duty alleged to have been recovered by the respondent. These applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs was dismissed by the Collector of Customs and the revision petition fil...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maxxon India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC398
1. This is an application filed by Revenue for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/989-95/2000 dated 14.11.2000.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned JDR, submitted that M/s. Maxxon India Limited, Respondents, availed Modvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, namely, granules used in the manufacture of BOPP films; that during the process of manufacturing, certain amount of waste and scrap of plastic arises at various stages of production; that the part of waste is to be cleared as such at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 53/88-CE and some parts of waste are reprocessed in their factory premises into granules which are also cleared at nil rate of duty under the same Notification; that the show cause notice was issued for recovery of amount of Modvat credit in respect of inputs contained in waste cleared as such and reprocessed granules under the provisions of Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Tribunal under the present Order has held that the duty ...
Kailash Chand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC409
1. This is an application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/349/2002-NB dated 18,3.2002 in the case of Shri Kailash Chand Jain.2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, under his letter dated 21.4.2003 has requested for adjournment of the matter as he is pre-occupied in Kerala High Court. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned JDR, however, points out that the present application has not been filed by the Applicants, Shri Kailash Chand Jain as it has been filed by Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate. As per CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 an application has to be supported by a verification regarding its correctness by the- Applicant; that the present application does not carry any such verification at all, and therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.3. A perusal of the application reveals that it has been signed by Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, and not by the Applicant nor application is supported by a verification regarding its correctness by the Applicant. In view of thi...
Hari Prakash Singh Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC525
1. By the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner of Customs absolutely confiscated computer parts (valued at over Rs. 15 Lakhs) under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and a truck (from which the computer parts were seized) under Section 115 of the Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on the appellant under Section 112 (b) of the Act. He imposed similar penalties on three other persons also, who were found as occupants of the truck when officers of Customs had intercepted the vehicle. The Order of the Commissioner is in adjudication of a show-cause notice issued by the department on 1.12.2000 to the appellants, the aforementioned three persons (Jeet Ram Kashyap, Gajendra Singh Yadav and Umesh Kumar Verma) and two others (Hari Ram and Vinod Kumar) proposing to confiscate the goods and the vehicle and impose penalties on the noticees.2. In the present appeal, the challenge against the order of the Commissioner is on the main ground that the show-cause notice was not ser...
Merchant Export Ltd. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT466TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.32/2001/SIB/30/2000-Cus dated 17.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin while adjudicationg the case relating to alleged overinvoicing of ball pens exported by the appellants through Cochin Port under DEPB Shilling Bill No. 00157 dated 4.8.99. Commissioner upheld the charge of misdeclaring export price and market value of the goods with intent to avail higher quantum of duty entitlement than was due based on the correct value. The consignment comprising 6.50 lakhs ball pens had already been exported to Dubai. In the Adjudication order the Commissioner found that as against the declared export price of about Rs.84 lakhs (US$ 1.93 kahs at the rate of US $ 0.30 per ball pen) the clearance value through Dubai Customs was only US $ 13000 i.e. 0.02 per piece. Similarly, on the question of present market value of the goods, the Commissioner found that the pens had been purchased from their Caluctta manufacturers at a pric...
Abdul Aziz Reshamwala Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC115
1. In this appeal which has been preferred by the appellant, against the impugned order-in-original dated 3.10.2002, the only issue involved is as to whether the appellant is entitled to the release of the Indian currency of Rs. 21,23,050 confiscated under, Section 121 of the Customs Act or not.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the confiscated currency is the sale proceeds of 42 gold biscuits of foreign origin duly imported under the Gold Scheme by Abdul Saleem who handed over the same to the appellant as his attorney for sale and the latter (the appellant) delivered to one Dilip Kumar S. Jain who sold the same and handed over the money to one Rajendra Soni for delivery to the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the release of the same. But in our view, this contention of the learned Counsel is wholly misconceived and does not find any support and corroboration from the materials/evidence on record. Admittedly; the confiscated Indian currency in question w...
Himachal Fine Blanks Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1009TriDel
1. The appellants had taken Modvat credit of CVD of Rs. 1,59,510/- paid on inputs imported and cleared by them under two Bills of Entry mentioned below :- (1) Bill of Entry No. 922876, dated 6-10-95 showing CVD of Rs. 66,328.40. (2) Bill of Entry No. 931999, dated 1341-95 showing CVD of Rs. 93,182.60.None of these Bills of Entry was bearing stamped seal of the certifying assessing officer of the Customs. Only one of the documents was bearing even a signature put by some such officer. The other document did not even bear any such signature. Citing these reasons, the authorities below have denied the credit of CVD to the appellants. Hence the present appeal.2. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the reasons cited by the adjudicating and first appellate authorities are not valid enough to deny the credit. There was no dispute of the duty-paid nature of the goods, nor of the receipt of the goods and utilisation thereof in the appellant's factory for the manufactu...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prisma Polyfabs (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT381TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal as the Commissioner of Central Excise while confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalty on M/s. Prisma Polyfabs (Pvt.) Limited has not imposed interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, nor was there any request for adjournment. As the issue involved is in a very narrow compass, we take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR and after perusal of the records. On a query from the Bench, learned SDR intimated that the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act for imposing interest were not mentioned in the show cause notice dated 19-1-1998. As the provisions of the said section were not invoked in the show cause notice, the question of imposing interest under Section 11AB of the Act does not arise. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue which is rejected....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »