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.
Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC500
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10-8-99 disallowing the refund amount of the bank guarantee of Rs. 42.50 lakhs.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On execution of a Bond in Form 13 along with bank guarantee for the above said amount, the assessment of the appellants were made provisional under Rule 9B of the Rules. The Commissioner finalised the assessment vide final order-in-original dated 30-11-93 and the appellants were required to pay a sum of Rs. 56,99,860.23 which was the differential duty. The Department accordingly to recover this duty, encashed the bank guarantee already furnished by the appellants and appropriated the same against the differential duty demand. But that order of the Commissioner was not accepted by the appellants and they questioned its validity before the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The Tribunal vide fi...
Munna Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC578
1. The issues involved in these three appeals, arising out of common order-in-original No. 35/2001, dated 23-11-01 are whether the goods were liable for confiscation and whether the penalties were imposable on the appellants.2. Briefly stated the facts are that on the basis of information, the Customs officers intercepted a truck No. WB 11/3811 which was parked outside the godown of M/s. Varanasi Indore Roadlines. Shri Munna, proprietor of the Road-lines, was supervising unloading of packets from the truck. The search of the godown and truck resulted in seizure of 17 packets containing foreign origin silk yarn. The officers seized the 17 packets and the truck. The goods were claimed by M/s. New Paradise Silk Cooperative Society Ltd. on 2-8-2000. Shri Mohd. Hanif Ansari, Chairman deposed in his statement dated 11-8-2000 that while attending EXPO at Calcutta in February, 2000, he met one Mr. Binoy representative of M/s.Fairdeal Enterprises and Delhi party M/s. Kunal International and as...
Rajender Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC545
1. In this Appeal filed by Shri Rajender Kumar, the issue involved is whether the truck owned by him is liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act.2. Shri A.C. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the truck in question has been confiscated as Misc. goods such as cardamon, medicinal powder, cartons containing spectacles frames, gas cylinders etc. were seized from the truck on 7.4.2001; that as per the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned Order the driver and the cleaner of the truck had admitted time and again that one of the partner of Bharat Transport Company had told them to load some goods for Delhi from a place ahead of Sampurnanagar; that the said partner had also appraised them that evasion of some sales tax was involved in the case. The learned Advocate mentioned that from this version, the Commissioner had given a finding that the driver and cleaner had agreed to load the goods knowingly illicit nature of the goods and made the vehicle liable for confi...
R.K. Ahuja Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (General)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT33TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs passed under Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR, 1984. The learned Counsel has contended that the suspension of the appellant's CHA Licence could not be ordered without holding an enquiry into the matter and as such the order is illegal. He has also contended that even during the pendency of the enquiry, if any to be conducted, he should be allowed to work and his suspension of Licence should be revoked. He has placed reliance in the ratio of law laid down in Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2001 (129) E.L.T. 226]. On the other hand, learned JDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.2. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR shows that the Commissioner of Customs has power to suspend the Licence of the CHA by dispensing with any enquiry, in an appropriate case where ...
H.C.i. Comnet Systems and Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT349TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. H.C.L. Comnet Systems & Services Limited, the issue involved is whether the goods sent by the foreign supplier wrongly by mistake are liable to confiscation and whether the penalty is imposable on the Appellants under the provisions of the Customs Act.2. Shri Nand Kishore, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the activity of providing networking and telecommunication services; that they had placed a purchase Order dated 31-8-2001 on Cisco Systems Pvt. Ltd., USA in respect of various networking equipments; that one of the items indicated in the list was one unit of 4.0 CAB-530.MT = Male DTE RS-530 Cable, 10" foot priced at US $ 60; that under the impression that the foreign supplier has shipped the aforesaid Cable, they had filed Bill of Entry dated 18-10-2001 giving the description as 'CABLE'; that, however, on examination, it was found that the imported goods were not cables and in fact were "PCMCIA CARD 128 MB"; that the ...
Ginni International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT121TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants, the issue relates to the availability of the benefit of the Notifications No.8/97, dated 1-3-97 and 55/91-C.E. to the appellants. The adjudicating authority, however, allowed the benefit of these Notifications to the appellants in respect of the clearances made by them in DTA, although they are 100% EOU. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order through the impugned order-in-appeal, by holding that benefit of these Notifications is not available in respect of the clearances made by the appellants as a 100% EOU in DTA. This view of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) finds corroboration from the ratio of law laid down by the Tribunal in Parasrampuria International v. CCE, Indore - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 142 (T) = 2002 (52) RLT 545 wherein it has been clearly observed that the benefit of the above said Notifications to the 100% EOU is not available in respect of the DTA clearances.Therefore, we do not find any illegali...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prakash Gramodyog Samiti
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC54
1. The issue involved in these four appeals filed by revenue is whether the excisable goods manufactured by the Respondents, M/s. Prakash Gramodyog Samiti, bears the brand name of another person, namely M/s.Corona Plus Industries Ltd. (M/s. Corona Plus in short).2. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondents manufacture detergent powder bearing the brand name "Saving Plus"; that under an Agreement dated 6-4-1996 with M/s. Corona Plus, the Respondents supply their entire production of detergent powder to M/s.Corona Plus; that enquiry conducted by the Department revealed that the brand name "Saving Plus" belongs to M/s. Corona Plus; that it is evident from the fact that M/s. Corona Plus are getting detergent cakes manufactured from M/s. Navodaya Khadi Gramodyog Samiti (Navodaya in short) under the brand name "Saving Plus"; that it is specifically mentioned in the Agreement entered into between M/s. Corona Plus and Navodaya that M/s. Corona Plus are "the absolute owner/reg...
Rajat Kanwar Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC259
1. Respondent-Canara Bank filed O.A. 180/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant-Rajat Kanwar (as 5th defendant and hereinafter referred to as 'appellant/5th defendant), and four other defendants for the recovery of Rs. 75,93,865.19 with interest and costs. On 19.8.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order as prayed for by the respondent-Bank. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/5th defendant has preferred this appeal, and also this application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for waiving the pre-deposit, and to entertain the appeal.2. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this application. The appellant/5th defendant has also filed an additional affidavit.3. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/5th d...
Nokia India Private Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)173; AIR2003Delhi474; 105(2003)DLT919; 2003(71)DRJ599
1. Rule D.B. 2. Since the subject-matter of the writ petition does not brook any delay and we have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, we proceed to dispose of the matter finally at this stage itself. 3.The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, claiming to be the Indian arm of a world renowned company in the field of telecommunication equipments and technology, calls in question the decision taken on their representations by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD in short) of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for short the MTNL), a public sector undertaking, also engaged in providing telecommunication services in Delhi and Mumbai. By the impugned decision, the CM has rejected petitioner's representation praying for condensation of a few minutes delay in submission of the tender documents and its acceptance and consideration along with other bids received by the MTNL. 4. Briefly stated, the background facts are as follows: The ...
Juglal and ors. Vs. Dy. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)288; 106(2003)DLT288; 2003(70)DRJ256
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1.The genesis of this dispute is to be found in the Report of the Halqua Patwari dated 9.7.1998 in which it has been stated that on the demarcation of Khasra No.503/2, which is Gaon Sabha land, unauthorised construction carried out by the Petitioner, namely, Shri Juglal was noticed. The Report also mentions that the Patwari had been informed that this construction was 25-30 years old. On the basis of this Report proceedings under Section 86-A for the ejectment of the Petitioner appear to have been initiated. In the course of these proceedings, by his Order dated 31.3.2001, the Revenue Assistant (Vasant Vihar Sub-Division), New Delhi-110 037 ordered the ejectment of the Petitioner from Khasra No.503/2 (1-10), Village Rajokri, New Delhi with immediate effect. 2. It appears that no evidence was recorded. Yet, in the view of the Revenue Assistant, the illegal encroachments/houses were on Khasra No.509/2. It also transpires that some proceedings had been taken against the...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »