Delhi Court August 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.
Ghanshyam Das Suresh Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT402; 2004(75)DRJ498; 2004(93)ECC104; 2004(165)ELT514(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this writ petition the only question that arises for consideration is the question of interest payable on the import duty in respect of goods imported by the petitioner. The brief facts are that the petitioner imported, inter alia, cloves in 1988-89. The goods were warehoused on 16.3.1989. On the same date a warehousing bond was executed and furnished by the petitioner in respect of the said goods. Thereafter, various events took place with which we need not concern ourselves. The main issue centres around the notice of demand issued on 05.07.1991 whereunder a demand was raised on the petitioner by the revenue authorities in respect of the custom duty as well as interest payable on the custom duty. It is the contention of the respondents that interest on custom duty was payable by the petitioner for the period 16.06.1989 to 05.07.1991, in the first instance and thereafter, from 05.07.1991 till the date the goods were cleared from the warehouse. The custom au...
Dr. S.C. Shukla and ors. Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)119; 107(2003)DLT552; 2003(71)DRJ12
H.R. Malhotra, J.IA 9352/2001 in S.No. 1124/19951. This is an application made under order 1 Rule 10 CPC on behalf of one Sh.S.S.Gill and Sh.Vinod Kumar who desire to be imp leaded as plaintiffs in the suit in addition to other plaintiffs numbering 17 already on record besides Welfare Association of Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, SFS Flats, through its secretary.2. I may state that these applicants seek impleadment primarily on the ground that ends of justice would be met by their impleadment. What else is stated by them in this application is that even otherwise they are entitled to be imp leaded as they are residents of the area and are concerned with the illegal construction in their neighborhood.3. This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, SFS Flats Welfare Association through its secretary and other 16 members of the society against the DDA seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the land measuring 4000 sq. mtRs. fo...
Ravinder P. Kumar Vs. Sparrow Technologies Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)31; 2004(1)ARBLR28(Delhi); 107(2003)DLT341; 2004(1)RAJ89
H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. This is an application made by the defendant under the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking directions of the Court to refer the matter to the arbitration instead of proceeding with the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- there being arbitration agreement between the parties.2. It is stated in the application that a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties dated 9th January,1998 incorporating various clauses of understanding between the parties about the implementation of the contract and it was further agreed in clause 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding that in the event of any dispute between the parties, the same shall be referred to an arbitration of a single Arbitrator or two Arbitrators. According to the applicant-defendant, the dispute in question as agitated in the plaint being a subject matter of the Arbitrator, the same should be referred to the Arbitrator.3. The...
Yudhvir Singh Vs. Nagmani Financial Services (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)491; I(2004)BC342; 108(2003)DLT142; 2003(71)DRJ534
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2001 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing petitioner's complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in default, for non-appearance of the complainant and declining to restore the same. 2. Facts in brief are that appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against respondents. The respondents were summoned. On 13.8.2001, the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and for the failure of petitioner to file the process fee. The order reads as under:- '13.8.2001 Present: None. No P.F. filed again. There is a continuous default. It appears that complainant is no more interested. Hence dismissed. Consigned to record.' 3. Petitioner's application for restoration of the complaint was also dismissed by the trial court vide orders dated 13.9.2...
Rolex Steels (Lndia) (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)138
ORDERB.R. Jain, A.M.:All these appeals by the assessed are directed to be disposed of by a composite order.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 in all the appeals have not been pressed. The same are dismissed as not pressed.3. In ground No. 3 for assessment year 1988-89 and ground No. 6 for assessment year 1989-90 assessed has challenged charging of interest under section 139(8) and section 215/217 of the Act as improper and contrary to provisions of law on the ground that these were reassessment proceedings. assessed's counsel, Sh. Adlakha, contends that for assessment year 1988-89 proceedings were initiated on the assessed by issuance of notice under section 148 on 24-9-1992. Return of income was also filed ad the assessment was completed at Rs. 21.94 lakhs. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) however cancelled the assessment on the ground that notice issued under section 148. did not allow clear time of 30 days for filing return of income. This was not challenged by revenue. The assessing officer,...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Sainath Fabrics Inds. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT218TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the Revenue to condone the delay of 5 months 29 days in filing Appeals E/1670-1671/2003-NB(A). It is seen that initially the application as contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was made in time. But since two separate applications were not made in respect of the two assessees against a common order dated 28-9-2001 passed by the adjudicating authority, registry took objection. Thereafter, the appellant filed two separate applications which were beyond the time prescribed under Sub-section (4). It is Explanation (2) to Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 which provides for separate appeal. Explanation (2) reads as follows : "In case an impugned order is in respect of more than one persons, each aggrieved person will be required to file a separate appeal (and common appeals or joint appeals shall not be entertained)." 2. When the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise is the appellant we do not t...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Kayem Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC699
1. In these appeals, at the instance of the Revenue, challenge is against a number of orders-in-original passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise, Mumbai on different dates. The issue raised is whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the Revenue has failed to prove undervaluation at the instance of the assessees as alleged in the show cause notices.2. The respondents-assessees are engaged in the manufacture of PTY Twisted Yarn falling under chapter sub-heading 54.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence received by the officers of Anti Evasion Directorate that the assessees are indulging in evasion of central excise duty by resorting to undervaluation and clandestine clearances of PTY; that the assessees were clearing PTY from their factory gate at a very low value in the name of fictitious/non-existing firms, while the goods were actually being cleared to godown at Bhiwandi (Maharashtra), Surat (Gujarat) from where they ar...
Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)LC955Tri(Delhi)
1. The common issue is involved in all the appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soda ash, sodium bi-carbonate and cement. Appellants were clearing their final product on payment of duty. In certain cases, the duty-paid final product, which became defective and was not accepted by the customers, was received back in the appellants' factory. Appellants, on receipt of defective goods, after intimating the Revenue Department, reprocessed the goods and, thereafter, cleared the same on payment of duty. Thereafter, appellants filed the refund claims under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules in respect of the duty paid on these goods. The refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority. Appellants filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, rejected the appeals on the ground that the returned goods regarding which D-3 intimation was filed, were not verified and the ap...
Beekaylon Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC703
1. The above appeals are at the instance of the Revenue as well as the assessees. E/2943-45/02-A and E/2946/02-A are filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 25/01, dated 21-8-2001. The very same order is under challenge by the assessee in E/2787/01-A to the extent it is aggrieved by the order. E/3091-3092/02-A are appeals filed by the assessees from Orders-in-Original No. 50/01, dated 26-11-2001. There is no appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 50/01.Appeal E/2786/01 is also an appeal at the instance of the assessee directed against Order-in-original No. 26/01, dated 21-8-2001. There is no appeal by the Revenue against Order-in-original No. 26/01. E/1711/03 is at the instance of the Revenue challenging Order-in-original No.28/01, dated 30-8-2001. The same order is under challenge at the instance of the assessee in E/2788/01-A. E/1610/03 is filed by the Revenue challenging Order-in-original No. 29/01, dated 31-8-2001. Same order is challenged by the asse...
Vallabh Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT398TriDel
1. These four appeals are directed against the same order of adjudication. Accordingly, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The main appellant M/s. Vallabh Alloys Ltd. is a small-scale industry established in 1991. The other appellants are its officers, M/s. Vallabh Alloys took a Central Excise registration in June, 1992 for manufacture of copper/brass sheets, which are liable to central excise duty. On 2-4-93, this registration was surrendered. On 21-8-97, Central Excise Officers inspected the appellant's factory and seized goods valued about Rs. 19 lakhs. After further investigation, Show Cause Notice was issued on 18-2-98 alleging that the appellant had been clandestinely manufacturing and clearing copper/brass sheets without payment of duty. The Notice, therefore, proposed to demand the alleged short-levy and imposition of penalties. This notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi in May, 1998, confirming a duty demand of o...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »