Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Modern Insulators Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)(112)LC789Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Modern Insulators, the issue involved is whether the Central Excise duty and interest are demandable from them.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture electrical insulators; that they receive purchase orders for the projects being implemented by West Bengal State Electricity Board, being financed by Japan Bank for International Cooperation, for the supply of electrical insulators; that the respective buyers submitted the certificates, duly signed by the Head of Project Implementing Authority, Principal Secretary of the respective State Govt. and certified by the concerned Range Superintendent to the effect that the goods are exempt from payment of duty under Notification No.108/95-CE; that accordingly they had cleared the goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 108/95-CE; that subsequently, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty for the period from March, 2001 to December, 2001 and dem...
G.M. (Fin.), Bharat Aluminium Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC575
2. Ld. Advocate is pleading that the show-cause notice contains objections regarding invoices being defective or improper specifically with reference to not containing the pre-printed serial numbers. The annexures to the show-cause notice talks about the consignment being diverted by the manufacturer from original consignee to the appellants and, therefore, being ineligible document for modvat credit. The appellants pleaded that the main objection of the show-cause notice contains only objection relating to the invoices being improper document for want of having pre-printed serial numbers. The other objection which is listed in the body of the annexures was not mentioned in the main body of the show-cause notice. However, during the personal hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), who adjudicated the matter, these objections were also conveyed and the appellants allegedly refuted the allegations. The objection in the annexures to the show-cause notice was also challenged in a post-...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Star Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT846TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that, the respondents M/s. Star Paper Mills, are not required to pay the amount equal to 8% of the price of "waste sludge" charged by the respondents to their customers for its sale. The Commissioner (Appeals) after placing reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Modi Laminates (P) Ltd. and Dharangadhra Chemicals [1997 (91) E.L.T.253 (S.C.)] as also several other cases, held that, the sludge is not an excisable product though sold by the respondents.3. The catena of judgments extensively quoted by the Commissioner (Appeals) are enough to prove that the sludge is not an excisable product and is not required to pay any excise duty. The Tribunal in its judgment in the case of Shankar Sugar Mills [1998 (100) E.L.T. 151 (T)] and Supreme Court in their decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v.Titawi Sugar Complex [2003 (152) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.)I h...
Monica Electronics Ltd. Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC76
Mr. Jayant Nath states that the certified copy of the impugned order has been made available now, and he may be permitted to file the same today itself. Let him file the certified copy of the impugned order into the Registry today itself. Ordered accordingly.This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi declining the request/application made by the appellants herein to direct the respondent-Bank to furnish them certain documents referred to in the O.A. itself.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in view of Rule 9 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as the 1993 Rules), the respondent-Bank has to produce all the documents, not only relied upon, but also referred to in the O.A, He also points out that as per the averments in the O.A., the principal debtor had approached the Bank in 1994, and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 3 crores was disbursed on 8.7.1994, that the ...
Adish C. Aggarwala Vs. Bar Council of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)633
A.K. Sikri, J.1. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. With respect, I hold a different view. I am of the opinion that in the given case, the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief and this CM is liable to be dismissed. My reasons for dissent are enumerated hereafter in the following text.2. By means of this civil miscellaneous application, the petitioner is seeking ad interim stay. Perusal of the prayer clause would reveal the nature of relief which the petitioner wants at this stage :(i) stay the operation of the impugned order dated 26.8.2003, passed by respondent No. 1, till the final disposal of the accompanying writ petition, in the interest of justice.(ii) to direct the respondent No. 1 to 6 to maintain status quo ante as on 21.8.2003.(iii) to direct respondent No. 1 that in the meantime the petitioner shall continue to hold the office of member of Bar Council of Delhi.(iv) to direct the respondent No. 6 to allow the petitioner to function as V...
Shri S.P. JaIn S/O Late Baru Mal JaIn Vs. Guru Govind Singh Indraprash ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)331
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition challenges, inter alia, exclusion of the petitioner from consideration for selection to the post of University Librarian in the respondent/University. Mr. Saxena, counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite of the clear guidelines of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the respondent has not followed the guidelines while calling candidates for interview which was held on 27.10.2001. Notice of this petition was issued on 21.12.2001 and interim order was passed by this Court that if any appointment is made by the respondent/University to the post of Librarian, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and the aforesaid facts shall also be intimated to the candidate who was selected by the respondent/University. Learned counsel for the respondent says that selected candidate has been informed of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that 27 candidates including the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)259; 2004(73)DRJ455; [2004]269ITR140(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 1 October 2002, passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'C' Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 388 (Del) of 1996, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91.2. Factual position, as highlighted by the appellant, is as follows:The assessed, a registered firm, derives income from purchase and sale of Copper wire and Motor Stampings. It has two partners. One of the partners', namely, R.K. Gupta is based in Coimbatore and looks after the sales of the assessed firm. The goods are purchased in Delhi, transported to Coimbatore and sold there.3. On 13 February 1990, search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act took place at the business and residential premises of the assessed and its partners both at Delhi and Coimbatore. According to the Revenue, post-search enquiries revealed that some of the goods transpor...
Mohit Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)323; 108(2003)DLT584
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Instant FIR was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No. 2 that on 4.2.1999 the petitioner had forcibly entered into the premises referred as Flat No. 704, Survapriya Apartments, Survapriya Vihar, New Delhi and took over the possession. 2. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner has filed a civil suit against the complainant/informant No. 1 in respect of property in question. The petitioner is claiming ownership as well as possession over the said property being son of the deceased owner. The respondents/complainants are the nephews of the deceased owner. In the aforesaid civil suit the Civil Judge vide order dated 11.2.1999 has ordered that 'in the meantime the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner'. 3. As is apparent there is a dispute with regard to the possession and title over the property in question. Not only that the dispute as to pos...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)284; [2003]264ITR487(Delhi)
1. An order dated September 24, 2003, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 6, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to deposit the additional rectified demand of Rs. 138.02 crores in respect of the assessment year 2000-2001, within the specified time, is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the petition are as follows :On the completion of assessment for the aforementioned assessment year, an additional demand of Rs. 134 crores was created against the petitioner on account of certain additions/disallowances, mainly under Sections 43B, 80-IA and 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said demand was later on rectified to Rs. 138.02 crores. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Simultaneously, the petitioner moved an application with the Assessing Officer for stay of recovery of the said demand still the disposal of appeal. By the impugned order, the Assessing Offic...
Priyanka Gogna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT456
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. By consent of parties the Petitions are taken up for final disposal. The conceived provision is the following:'5.5. Procedure for selection to MBBS course shall be as follows:(i) In case of admission on the basis of qualifying examination under Clause (1) based on merit, candidate for admission to MBBS course must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology & English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination as mentioned in Clause (2) of Regulation 4. In respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in qualifying examination be 40% instead of 50% as above;(ii) In case of admission on the basis of competitive entrance examination under Clauses (2) to (4) of this regulation, a candidate must have passed in the subject of Physics, Che...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »