Delhi Court June 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.
Harinder Pal Singh Shergill Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT358TriDel
1. The appellant Captain Harinder Pal Singh Shergill was intercepted by Customs Officers in the departure hall at Module II, NIPT, Sahara Airport, Mumbai on 3-8-98. At the time of interception, the Captain was proceeding to take up the command of Air India's Flight A1 670, Mumbai-Trivandrum-Doha-Bahrain. His baggage had been booked and he had been cleared through Customs. The interception was pursuant to information. The personal search of the Captain led to the recovery of US $ 61,000. This consisted entirely of currency notes of US$ 100 denomination. The currency was kept in a paper packet (wrapped with brown coloured adhesive tape) inside a black belt which had been tied to the waist of the Captain, beneath his trousers. In addition to 61,000 US$ so- recovered, the Customs Officers also recovered 5,217 US$ from the Wallet of the Captain. The Customs Officers seized the currency, belt, etc., on the ground that the currency was being illegally and clandestinely exported out of India ...
Cce Vs. Kew Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC535
1. There is no representation today for the respondents in spite of notice. Having examined the records, I am of the view that this appeal of the Revenue can be finally disposed of at this stage after hearing the DR.2. It appears from the record that the respondents were availing the facility of payment of Central Excise duty on fortnightly basis under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (2) Rules 2001; that the original authority had withdrawn this facility for a period of 2 months on the ground of defaults in payment of duty by the party for three fortnights ending 31.5.2001, 15.7.2001 and 31.7.2001; that the order of the original authority was appealed against; that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and that the Revenue has filed the present appeal on the basis of its interpretation of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules. Ld. DR has reiterated the ground stated in the memorandum of appeal.3. I have examined the above ground of the appeal and the submissions of the Ld...
G.M. Telecom Bsnl Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC805
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the General Manager Telecom BSNL, Amritsar challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 26.11.2001. Under the above order the Commissioner confirmed the order passed by Additional Commissioner (Preventive) demanding an amount of Rs. 15,69,132 as interest on delayed payment of service tax for the period August 1994 to March 1999. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the contention raised by the appellant that service tax alongwith the amount due under the bill of each subscriber was being paid to the account of the Central Government on day-to-day basis at the close of each working day and merely because there is a delay in crediting the service tax by way of a book transfer to the book account of the Central Government under head 0044 will not make the appellant liable for interest. Aggrieved by the above, the General Manager Telecom has come up in appeal.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that...
Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Railways, Vs. Mrs. Maya Sinha, Finan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)316; 105(2003)DLT694; 2003(71)DRJ716; 2004(1)SLJ165(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 2nd April, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal concluded that the grounds taken by the Petitioners in denying promotion to the Respondent to the Higher Administrative Grade were not justified. 3. The Respondent is working as a Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer in the Northern Railways. She is entitled to be considered for empanelment and promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade. 4. Sometime in June-July, 2001, the respondent being the Finance Member of a Tender Committee, was concerned with the procurement of optical fiber armoured cable. It appears that there were some irregularities in the procurement which allegedly resulted in a loss of approximately Rs. 1 crore to the Government. Since the irregularities were fairly serious and involving a huge amount, vigilance investigations...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›