Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2003 Page 1 of about 274 results (0.021 seconds)Flex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT804TriDel
1. The adjudicating and first appellate authorities have denied Modvat credit of countervailing duty of Rs. 80,228/- to the appellants in respect of Colour Proofing Film (Tariff sub-heading No. 3702.90), which was used in April, 1998 in connection with the manufacture of Gravure Printing Cylinders (GPC, in short). The appellants are manufacturers, inter alia, of printed/unprinted articles of plastics in roll form (Tariff sub-heading No. 3920.38).The printing part of the manufacture is done with GPC. The GPC is prepared in the following manner :- Colour Proofing Film in roll form is fitted in the Colour Proofing Machine. A positive of the design (supplied by the customer) is passed through the Colour Proofing Machine when the film is layered on the sheet containing the positive design. The colour of the Proofing Film gets stuck-up on the positive, whereby a coloured design emerges, which is visible to the naked eye. This colour design is then sent to the customer for approval. After ob...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Swissen Interspace Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT205TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue seeks enhancement of the duty demand to about Rs. 1.75 crore (against the duty of over Rs. 36 lakhs confirmed in the impugned order) and imposition of appropriate amount of penalty taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and duty evaded.Thus, the appeal seeks confirmation of the entire duty amount as proposed in the show cause notice. The ground taken for the enhancement is that since the Adjudicating authority had upheld the charge of evasion of duty as made in the show cause notice and had found that the appellant had cleared dutiable furniture in the guise of exempted Window Shutters, the Adjudicating authority was not correct in confirming duty demand at a lower amount.2. The duty demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority at a lower amount with the following observation : "26.5 As far as the calculation of duty is concerned, on examination of the Annexure to the Show-cause Notice, I find that the duty slab rates were worked out, ...
Tag this Judgment!P.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC560
1. The appellants manufacture Alloy Steels Castings in two units located in Lucknow in UP arid Bhiwadi in Rajasthan. At times, the rough castings manufactured in one unit are sent to the other for carrying put certain finishing processes. The removal of the rough castings is on payment of duty and takes the duty paid in the first unit is taken as modvat credit in the second unit. The second unit which receives the goods carries out the finishing processes like machining, hardening, testing etc. and sells the goods after payment of duty. Differential duty demands have been raised in the impugned orders in regard to clearance of rough castings on the ground that these goods have been undervalued, leading to short payment of duty.2. It is the appellant's contention that the duty demand is not warranted since whatever duty is paid in the first unit in regard to rough castings is available to the second unit as modvat credit and thus making the entire exercise revenue neutral. It is also p...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC498
1. This appeal of M/s. J.K. Papers Ltd. is directed against the confirmation of a duty demand of Rs. 65,731/-. The facts leading to the duty demand is that the appellants cleared, without payment of duty, a quantity of about 84 MT of writing and printing papers for export to Bangladesh. Part of the goods were not accepted by the foreign purchaser. Accordingly, they were sold to buyers in India at a lower price on account of deterioration in quality because of long storage.The appellants paid central excise duty on these goods taking the sale price as the assessable value. Differential duty demand was raised by the Central Excise authorities on the ground that assessable value was required to be determined on the basis of normal price prevailing at the time of original clearance of the goods from the factory and not at the sale price at a later date for deteriorated goods. It is the submission of the appellants that sale price on the goods is the relevant price for the purpose of deter...
Tag this Judgment!Service Bureau (Cha) Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC502
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (I & G), New Delhi dated 11.7.2003 ordering continuation of the suspension of licence issued to the appellant as Custom House Agent. Initially by order dated 10.6.2003 Custom House Agent licence of the appellant had been suspended pending detailed enquiry on the ground that the appellant had adopted modus operandi to first file the shipping bills of unscrupulous exporter for exporting sub-standard goods through unauthorized persons and claim higher export benefits against their licence. It was also alleged that when later the fraud was detected the appellant denied connection with those persons/exporters/shippers. The above order was challenged before this Tribunal which resulted in Order No. 308/03-NB(A), dated 3.7.2003 remanding the case back to Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity to explain the position. Therefore, the appellant was...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Signature
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)117
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 4th Jan., 1999, for asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The Department has taken only two grounds to challenge the cancellation of penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) at Rs. 8,80,000.3. Shri Joginder Singh, senior Departmental Representative, appeared on behalf of the Department whereas Shri R. Ganesan and Shri P.N. Shastri C.As. represented the assessee.4. The assessee-firm was engaged in the business of sale of fashion garments. During the year under assessment, the assessee showed net profit of Rs. 6,64,802. A survey was conducted in the business premises of the assessee under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), on 29th Nov., 1994. The assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 22 lacs on account of excess stock found and on account of expenditure incurred in the furniture, fixture and renovation of the shop. The AO made an addition of Rs. 22 lacs on account o...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Santosh Meena Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)68; 109(2004)DLT384
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. A hard situation necessitates taking of a harsh decision. The question before me is whether the Petitioner, who has undergone only the 12th Class Examination in Delhi is entitled to be considered for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in Delhi. The Petitioner was residing in Surat along with his parents. His father after taking Voluntary Retirement moved to Delhi while he was pursuing studies in the 9th Class. Thereafter, he continued his studies and cleared the 10th and 11th Class also from Surat. In Surat the Rules prescribe that students should have successfully completed the 10th, 11th and 12th Class in the state of Gujarat for being eligible for admission to educational courses in that state. This eligibility criteria of three years has received the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anant Madaan Versus State of Haryana and Others, : AIR1995SC955 . If a requirement of three years has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there seems no possibility for ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Om Prakash Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4276; 106(2003)DLT172; 2003(70)DRJ202; 2003(3)JCC1430
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. By this common order, both these petitions are disposed of as these are filed against the identical order.2. Admittedly the petitioner in Crl.M(M) 397/2000 who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences had prescribed ayurvedic medicines to some patients. One of the patients purchased the said medicines from the shop of co-accused which was later on found to be spurious and fake. By impugned order dated 10.12.1999, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered for framing the charges by finding that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner among other co-accused for the offence under Section -33I(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Section 120B IPC and under Section 275 and 276 IPC. 3. Through this petition, the legality of the impugned order has been challenged solely on the ground that the complaint was instituted by an Inspector who was not authorised to institute the complaint without...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhan Kumar Acharya Vs. Reserve Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)322; 106(2003)DLT409
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner was employed with the Reserve Bank of India in Grade II. He was charge-sheeted and dismissed from the service of the Reserve Bank of India on 22.11.2002. The appeal filed against the dismissal order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28.3.2003. Thereafter, a Section 4 notice under the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why an eviction order should not be passed against him. The said notice was issued on 10.6.2003 and was affixed on the outer door of the premises in which the petitioner resided on 12.6.2003. Apart from affixation, notice was also sent under registered post and UPC. Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear on 20.6.2003, the date fixed for hearing before the Estate Officer. Accordingly, by an order dated 21.6.2003, the Estate Officer ordered eviction of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Singh Vs. Laxmi Float Glass Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT95; 2003(71)DRJ645; (2003)IIILLJ1054Del; 2004(1)SLJ206(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition by a workman, employed by the respondent No. 1/Management, who was injured while working for the respondent No. 1 seeks a mandamus to direct the respondent No. 3, Zonal Manager, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and respondent No. 4, Regional Manager, ESIC, Karampura to settle the claim of the petitioner within 10 days and for release of interim claim of Rs. 2 lakhs and re-employment with respondent No. 1 on easy terms and conditions. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner sustained certain injuries while working for respondent No. 1 Company. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had raised a claim before the Commissioner, Labour under the Workmen's Compensation Act on 4th June, 1999. 3. On a plea raised by the respondent No. 1 Company, stating that the Company is governed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Labour Commissioner passed an Order on 20th Decembe...
Tag this Judgment!