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.
Global Syntex (Bhl) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC31
2. Applicants filed these applications for waiver of duty and penalty.Applicants submitted that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice dated 3.7.2002 was affixed on the factory premises on 4.7.2002. This fact is admitted in the impugned order. As the factory of the applicants was lying closed, hence the applicants not received the Show Cause Notice. The applicants also submitted that the Traders namely; M/s. Surbhai Textile (Synthetics), M/s. Oxforte Fabrics, M/s. Manak Textile, M/s. Sanskar Synthetics, M/s. Shree Vandana Fabrics, M/s. Adarsh Synthetics Pvt.Ltd., specifically asked for relied upon documents to file reply to Show Cause Notice and the same were not supplied. The adjudicating authority presumed that the relied upon documents were supplied with the show cause notices. Applicants submits that with the show cause notice only list of documents was supplied, as is evident from Para 33 of the Show Cause notice.3. S...
A.K. Spintex Ltd. and Shri L.P. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC631
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority ordering the confiscation of the goods and imposing penalties on Appellants No.1 and also on Appellants No. 2, the Director of the firm, Appellants No. 1, under Rule 209-A of the Rules.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The anti-evasion staff of the Central Excise Division, Bhilwara, conducted raid on the factory premises of the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of processed man-made fabrics. 9 lumps-673 metres of processed man-made fabrics was found loaded in the truck parked inside the factory premises. These goods were being attempted to be cleared under a fake invoice No. 1209 and this fact was conceded at the spot by Appellant No. 2, Director of the firm, by stating that whatever had been disclosed by his excise clerk, Shri Devender Singh about the issuance of a fake invoice,...
Shalimar Ispat Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT38TriDel
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 45,40,500/-.2. Applicants had already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,51,331 /-. The contention of the applicants is that in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills v. C.C.E., Chandigarh-I, reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 46 (Tri. - LB), the provisions of Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 are not applicable on the facts of the present case. We find that after determination of Annual Capacity by the Commissioner of Central Excise, there is no change in the parameters of the Company. Therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal is not applicable on the facts of present case. We find, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of the duty.The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs (Rupees Seven lakhs only) in addition to the amount already deposited within six weeks. On dep...
Doiwala Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT990TriDel
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of VP sugar and molasses.One of their capital goods is Fibrizer Rotor Assembly. This item was sent to a job worker for the purpose of repairs and, on completion of the job work, it was returned to the appellants by the job worker on payment of duty amounting to Rs. 88,400/- under Invoice No. 339, dated 13-10-98 issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants took Modvat credit of this amount of duty under Rule 57Q on 31-12-98, which was objected to by the Department, who issued a show cause notice to the appellants proposing to disallow the credit on the ground that no new capital goods had been received by the appellants under cover of the above invoice and further that the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q was not available in respect of duty paid on labour/repairing charges. The notice also proposed to impose penalty on the appellants. These proposals were contested. The adjudicating authority disallowed th...
Ram Lubhaya Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC534
1. It is submitted, on behalf of the applicant that he has received an amount of Rs. one lakh by way of cheque dated 20-5-2003 from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi. He, further, submits that no interest has been paid even though he is entitled to the interest on the delayed refund of pre-deposit.2. There will be a direction to pay interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs. one lakh w.e.f. the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Final order passed by the Tribunal. To come up on 23-9-2003. On that day, respondent shall report compliance....
Shri Satishkumar Vs. Prism Cemen Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT36
R.C. Jain, J. 1. A short but important question about the interpretation of the provisions of Order xxxvII of the Civil Procedure Code (for short called 'the Code') arises in this civil revision under Section 115 of the Code directed against the order of the learned trial court dated 12-1-2001 thereby dismissing an application under Order xxxvII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code moved on behalf of the defendant petitioner herein for setting aside the decree dated 28-7-19999 passed in a summary suit filed b the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of Rs.40,700/-. 2.The relevant facts which may be noticed for the purpose of the disposal of the present petition are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit under Order xxxvII of the Code for recovery of Rs.40,700/- along with interest and costs and summons for appearance was issued and the defendant entered his appearance. The suit was registered as a summary suit. Later summons for judgment were served. On 9-3-1999. Counsel f...
S.K. Puri and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT71
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Rule. 2. By consent of the parties the Petition has been set down for final hearing. Arguments have been addressed in detail. 3. The grievance which has been ventilated in this Petition is that Master Gaurav Puri, a student in Class-V of Don Bosco School, Alaknanda, New Delhi has illegally not been promoted to the VIth Class by the decision dated 20.3.2003 (Annexure-A). It has been averred that he has obtained an aggregate percentage of 43.8%. Out of total marks of 200 in each subject, he has received 66 marks in English, 115 marks in Hindi, 67 marks in Mathematics, 97 marks in General Science, 66 marks in Social Studies and 116 marks in Computer. thereforee, he has secured less than 40% marks in English, Mathematics and Social Studies. 4. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Deepak Masih, learned counsel for the Petitioner on Instructions dated 8.9.2001 issued by the Directorate of Education which reads as follows: ''PROMOTION RULES FOR CLASS IV TO IX and XI In order ...
In Re: Siel Limited;
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas536(Delhi); 2004(72)DRJ329; [2003]47SCL631(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These petitions are filed under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for sanction of the scheme of arrangement between Siel Limited, Siel Sugar Limited, Siel Holdings Limited and Shivajimarg Properties Limited. Company Petition o. 107 of 2003 is filed by Siel Limited, whereas Company Petition Nos. 108/2003, 109/2003, 110/2003 are filed by Siel Sugar Limited, Siel Holdings Limited and Shivajimarg Properties Limited, respectively. The registered office of the companies are located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, thereforee, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present petitions. As the facts pertaining to all the petitions are same and the issues raised are also similar, I propose to dispose of ll these petitions by this common judgment and order. 2. The Boards of Directors of all the companies prepared a scheme of arrangement consisting of debt restructuring as well as business restructuring and the said Boards of...
Chhavi Raj and ors. Vs. the Vice Chancellor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)501
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1.The challenge in this Writ Petition concerns the admission to the MBBS/BDS Courses-2003 for the Academic Year 2003-2004, and in particular to the failure of the Petitioners to grant admittance to the Petitioners in said course under the CWAPP Category. 2. A total of 20 seats are available under this Category, as is evident from the following Table: Table Statement showing tentative number of seats in Under- Graduate course for the session 2003: ._____________________________________________________________________ Name of Seats to be filed in by the Seats to be filled in by Medical University of Delhi. D.G.H.S.College GEN PH SC ST CWAPP NGOI 15%Quota Seats Total MBBS CourseHMC 44 1 19 10 6 30 20 130 MAMC 95 2 27 14 9 6 27 180 CMS 57 1 15 7 5 Nil 15 100 Total 196 4 61 31 20 36 62 410 BDS Course MAMC 12 3 2 Nil Nil 3 20 .2. The Bulletin of Information published by the University of Delhi (Faculty of Medical Sciences) from which the Table reproduced above has been ext...
Mr. Chaman Lal Vs. State Bank of India Through Chairman Central Office
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT639; 2003(71)DRJ133; 2003LabIC3417; (2003)IIILLJ149Del; 2004(2)SLJ274(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. Petitioner has filed writ petition being aggrieved by the findings of inquiry committee and imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service vide letter No. VIG/1323 dated 17th September, 1986. Petitioner joined as Clerk in the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India and after establishment of the State Bank of India services of the petitioner were transferred to the respondent/SBI w.e.f. 1.7.1955. Petitioner was promoted as Grade II officer w.e.f. December, 1971. He was further promoted as Officer Grade- I w.e.f. December, 1973. In the year 1979, petitioner was promoted as Branch Manager. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the prior to the order of dismissal from service he had put more than 32 years of unblemished service. A charge sheet dated 17th September 1985 which contains four charges was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer, order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing petitioner and order of the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »