Delhi Court July 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.
Kanha Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT659TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby the amount of Rs. 69.03 lakhs was confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants purchased the goods imported by M/s. Associated Industries for Rs. 5,35,23,958/- and paid only Rs. 4,66,20,969/-, the balance of Rs. 69,02,969/- were still to be paid by the appellants. The matter was investigated by the Revenue authority and it was found that goods were imported against advance licences produced by M/s. Associated Industries which were found to be bogus. Actually no advance licence was issued by the authority against which the goods were imported. M/s. Associated Industries were also found to be a bogus firm. During the investigation the appellants deposited the amount of Rs. 69.03 lakhs which were confiscated by the adjudicating authority.4. The contention of the appellant is that amounts in question were confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act as a ...
Somani Iron and Steels Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC31
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Somani Iron & Steels Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and steel castings.Appellants were also having two sister concerns, viz., M/s. Usha Udyog, Kanpur and M/s. RHL Profiles Ltd., Kanpur having rolling mills. These sister concerns were buying considerable quantity of ingots from M/s.Somani Iron & Steels Ltd. which were used in the manufacture of final products. On 18.1.93, the factory premises of the appellants as well as of their sister concerns, were searched by the revenue authorities.During verification of records, it was found that there was an excess of 325 MTs of M.S. Ingots as compared to their recorded balance in their statutory record. A separate show cause notice was issued to the appellants for this excess quantity.3. During verification of the private records, it was found that from 1.1.93 t...
Royal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC582
1. Appellant is an engineering unit. They have been carrying out various fabrication works for Railway Coach Factory at Kapurthala.2. The present appeal is directed against the duty demand of over Rs. 24 lakhs, made with regard to fabrication of "bottom side wall sheets" for Railway Coach Factory during the period January, 1996 to July, 1999.3. The duty demand is being resisted on the ground of limitation. The appellant's contention is that the relevant facts about the fabrication activities carried out by the appellant and method of valuation were known to the Revenue authorities and therefore, the demand made by resorting to extended period as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable. The demand is on the ground that the appellant did not include the value of free supply raw materials in the assessable value, while paying duty on 'bottom side wall sheets'. The submission of the appellant is that the appellant had been carrying out fab...
interscape Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC65
1. Shri Vinoo K. Naik (appellant in Appeal No. 2336/98) is the proprietor of the concern M/s. Interscape (appellants in Appeal No.2335/98). Hotel Rajputana Palace Sheraton, Jaipur (appellant in Appeal No. 216/98) is a unit of M/s. ITC Hotels Limited (erstwhile Hotels Division of M/s. ITC Limited). M/s. Interscape were awarded a contract, as per two agreements dated 23-6-92 and 25-8-92 entered into between them and M/s. ITC Ltd. (incorporated under the Companies Act, with registered office at Kolkata), to make different items of furniture for a 5-Star Deluxe Hotel at Jaipur, which later on came to be known as Hotel Rajputana Palace Sheraton (hereinafter referred to as Hotel RPS).The work was executed by M/s. Interscape through sub-contractors in 1992-93, with the raw materials supplied by M/s. ITC and as per the specifications, drawings and designs supplied by them. On 12-12-95, officers of Central Excise visited Hotel RPS and called for details of the above contract, which were furnis...
Speco Industrial Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC78
1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s. Speco Industrial Corporation is whether the goods imported by them are heavy melting scrap classifiable under sub-heading 7204.49 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 72.08/72.09 of the Tariff as classified by the Commissioner in both the impugned orders and whether the assessable value is liable to be enhanced.2. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants had imported heavy melting scrap other than re-rollable scrap, stainless steel or hot-rolled steel from M/s. Scrap Mould International Corporation Ltd., Dubai and sought clearance of the same at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 or Notification No. 21/02, dated 1-3-2002; that on examination by the Customs Officers in the presence of the independent witness and authorised representative of the appellants, the impugned goods were found to be defective/secondary s...
Sitaram Singhania Vs. Icici Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC15
1. Office note indicates that the reply to Miscellaneous Application 86/2001 has not been filed. Mr. Rajesh Malhotra states that he has filed the reply to the main appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant states that in view of the legal position as it stands today, notice to the respondents other than respondents 1 and 6 be dispensed with, inasmuch as the applicant/appellant have to seek appropriate remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notice to the other respondents is accordingly dispensed with.3. I have heard the Counsel for the applicant/appellant and respondents 1 and 6.4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that no permission was necessary from the Company Court for initiating proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He contends that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Court in a Division Bench judgment reported in Pennar Peterson Limited v. State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors., I (2002) BC 25 (DB)=2001 (...
Ram Prakash Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC137
1. First respondent-Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O. A. 410/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against (1) M/s. Design Shoppe, (2) Mr. Chandan Roy (proprietor of No. 1), and (3) Ram Prakash (appellant herein). There learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned final order dated 4.3.1999 directed the defendants to pay Rs. 40,16,733.99 with interest and costs. He also directed the sale of the mortgaged property.2. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal and also this application for. condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this application.3. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and persued the records.4. The impugned final order was passed on 4.3.1999, but the appeal against the same has been presented on 18.7.2002, i.e., more than three years after the final order. According to the appellant, the copy of the final orde...
Smt. Rajo and ors. Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC12; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)276; 105(2003)DLT982; 2003(70)DRJ656
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellants are the parents of one Mr.Rajinder Kumar who died on 28.9.1990 in a road accident, alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. Appellants, have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal after recording of evidence of the parties had held that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no.1 and the deceased Rajinder Kumar had died due to the injuries received in the said accident. It was further held by the Tribunal that the appellants being the parents of the deceased were entitled to the grant of compensation for his death. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.63,480/- Along with interest @ 9% per annum in favor of the appellants. While, the award has not been challenged by the respondents, the appellants as already mentioned abov...
Shri Ranbir Singh Vs. the Lt. Governor (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)598; 106(2003)DLT67; 2003(70)DRJ71
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2nd August, 2000 passed by the Licensing Authority whereby the gun license of the petitioner was not renewed. A few facts giving rise to the present appeal are :2. The petitioner was issued an arms license by S.D.M., Sonepat, in the State of Haryana, in respect of a .32 bore revolver bearing No.881589. Subsequently the license was transferred to Delhi and was registered with the Licensing Authority in Delhi as per the provisions of the Arms Act and the Rules framed there under. The license has stated to have been renewed periodically by the authorities. A notice dated 19th March, 1991 was issued by the Licensing Authority to the petitioner to show cause why his license be not cancelled for his involvement in case FIR Nos.466/80 and 131/88 registered with P.S. Delhi Cantt. And P.S. Bahadur Garh respectively. The petitioner is stated to have filed reply to the show cause no...
Ashok Kumar Shrimali, S/O Shri Karuna Shanker Shrimali Vs. the Executi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)478; 106(2003)DLT299; 2003(70)DRJ511; 2004(1)SLJ481(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This writ petition, inter alia, challenges non-grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Adviser (Economic) to the petitioner from the date when one outsider candidate joined the organisation on 20th August, 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner joined Indian Investment Centre as Junior Technical Officer on 30th December, 1982. He was eligible for promotion in 1991 when an advertisement was issued on behalf of the respondent by one advertising agency for appointment to the post of Assistant Adviser (Economic) in the pay scale of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-4500/- plus DA, CCA, HRA etc. It is contended before me that there were two posts of Assistant Adviser (Economic), one of which has been filed by a direct recruit in 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the filling of the post by the direct recruitment by the respondent was totally illegal and not in consonance with the rules of respondent. It has been contended that Rule 7 of Service Rules of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »