Delhi Court September 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Varco Sara India (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT79TriDel
1. This is revenue's appeal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute relates to respondent's claim for small scale exemption Brand name and clubbing of clearances are the two main issues. Sara Services and Engineers (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred as SSAE) are incorporated as company since 27-3-1980 and are holder of Central Excise Registration for manufacture of various "oil field equipments". One Varco B. J. Oil Tools BV, owned by Varco International, U.S.A., (hereinafter referred to as Varco BJ) who are pioneers in the manufacture of oil field equipments in the world, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 6-10-1990 with SSAE to promote and incorporate a joint venture company in the name and style of Varco Sara India Pvt. Ltd. for the manufacture of equipments used in oil drilling viz. elevators, manual tongs, slips and their spares classified under Heading No. 84.77 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Varco Sara are registered with Central Excise R...
Modern Wire Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT533TriDel
2. In this case, the benefit of the Modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that M/s. Shiva International who issued the invoices as dealer is not registered with the Revenue Authority.3. The contention of the appellants is that M/s. Shiva International was proprietary concern and was taken over in August, 1994 by M/s.Shiva Metal Alloys International who registered with the Revenue Authority prior to December, 1994. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is that the Modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the appellants were not registered with the Revenue Authority.4. The learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that M/s. Shiva International was never registered with the Revenue Authority.Therefore, the invoices issued by the unregistered dealer are not used for taking the Modvat credit.5. In this case, M/s. Shiva International who issued the invoices was taken over by M/s. Shiva Metal Alloys International in August, 1994.Memorandum of Associati...
Cce Vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC846
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority refusing to accept that the price at the time of clearance of the goods, could not be treated as cum-duty price and as such respondents were liable to duty demanded through show cause notice.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents cleared the goods under Exemption Order dated 2.11.99 for charitable purposes in relation to the relief and rehabilitation of the people affected by the cyclone in the State of Orissa. However, later on, they were found to be not entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Order, for having failed to produce requisite certificate from the competent authority. They accordingly debited the amount of Rs. 2,23,564 in their PLA towards the discharge of duty. They were however served with a show-cause notice, requiring them to pay differential duty of Rs. 15,1...
Airogo Travel and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)440; 2004(1)CTLJ220(Del); 110(2004)DLT395; 2003(70)DRJ757
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.2. The present petition relates to the export cargo handling services at Indira Gandhi International Airport (Cargo Terminal). Cargo Handling is divided into two sub groups: one for imports and one for exports. In March 2002 a tender was floated for Cargo Handling Services at Indira Gandhi International Airport (Cargo Terminal). The tender comprised of a two part bid: (i) a technical bid and (ii) a price/commercial bid. The petitioner along with several others submitted their bids for the export cargo handling services. After the evaluation of the technical bids only three parties remained: the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 3.3. In April, 2002 the price bids of the said three parties were opened. Respondent No. 4 was found to be L-1. The petitioner was L-2 and the Respondent No. 3 was L-3. In this view, the tender was awarded to respondent No. 4 being L...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kanta Rani Juneja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC116; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)34
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. With the consent of the parties, matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal to challenge the award of the tribunal whereby the tribunal has directed the insurer to satisfy the award despite the driver of the offending vehicle did not having a valid driving license to drive the heavy transport vehicle on the date of the accident. The contention of Mr. Seth appearing on behalf of the appellant is that as there being a willful breach of the conditions of contract of insurance by the insured by permitting the driver who did not have a valid driving license to drive the heavy transport vehicle, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay compensation under the award to the claimants. It is also submitted that even assuming the insurance company was liable to pay compensation under the award, the tribunal ought to have given a direction to the insured to pay such compensation to the insura...
Smt. Shakuntla Mittal Vs. Green Field Public School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)549; 107(2003)DLT548; 2003(71)DRJ118; 2004(2)SLJ303(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner's complaint is the alleged disobedience of the Respondents towards the Order dated 10.6.1999 of the Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal, in Appeal No.3 of 1980, the operative part of which reads thus:'The services of the appellant have been dispensed with in a summary manner and without recourse to the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the rules made there. Hence, all the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated. This is being so, I hold the removal of the services of the appellant with effect from 24.1.1980 as illegal.Hence, accepting the appeal I do hereby set aside the impugned order. Consequently the appellant is entitled to be reinstated with all the consequential benefits.'2. In their response, the Respondents have taken the stand that they have always been desirous and willing to implement the Orders dated 10.6.1999 and pay unto the Petitioner her legitimate and due entitlement in terms of the said Ord...
N.C. JaIn and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)562; 107(2003)DLT242; 2003(71)DRJ14; 2004(2)SLJ291(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are employed with the respondents as Assistant Engineers (Civil) and are working on the said post for more than 24 years. Petitioners no. 3,4 & 5 are presently working as Executive Engineers (civil) on ad hoc basis. The petitioners are working on the said post for more than twenty four years against the prescribed qualifying service period of eight years for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). It is the case of the petitioner that they are within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of the Executive Engineer (Civil) as per seniority list 30.11.96 circulated on 16.1.97. Their grievance is that the respondents have not held regular DPC meetings since September, 1995 and the vacancies to the post of Executive Engineers (Civil) have been filled up time and again by promoting Assistant Engineers (Civil ) on ad hoc basis. As on date, 17 posts of Executive Engineers (Civil) are...
Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rail Tel ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ307(Del); 112(2004)DLT908
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent a Government of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Railways, floated a tender for supply of installation and commissioning of STM-16/STM-4 SDH ADD/Drop Mixes (Telecommunication Exchange) in April, 2003. Bids were to be submitted in two parts; Part-I consisted of technical and commercial element of the tender bid (Credential Bid) and Part-II related to price element of the bid (Price Bid). On May 28, 2003 the respondent issued a corrigendum and addendum to the tender. One of the amendments was with respect to Clause 18.2.3 of the tender conditions whereby respondent wanted all the bidders to certify that its equipment is a proven equipment and working satisfactorily in India or at least two countries outside the country of origin for at least six months. 10 bidders submitted their bids including the petitioners. On July 7, 2003 Credential Bid i.e. technical and commercial bids of the bidders were opened. Thereafter price bids were opened on August 22...
Connaught Circus Municipal and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ730
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice of rule. 2. The short controversy, which arises for consideration in the present case, is as a consequence of the proposed action of respondents No. 3 to 6 to construct a all on the rear side of NDMC, Yusuf Zai Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The petitioner association represents various occupants of the shops, who have been allotted shops on license basis by respondent No. 1 NDMC. The dispute in the present case does not relate to violation of the terms and conditions of license for which is was always open to respondent No. 1 NDMC to take action in accordance with law. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner association is that there are air-conditioning ducts and window on the back side of the shops in question from a considerable period of time and construction of a wall next to the rear wall would result in blockage of the same. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6, on th...
India Habitat Centre Vs. Joint Director of It (Exemption)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Del)76
ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.All these appeals are directed against separate orders passed by the Director of IT (Exemp.) (hereinafter referred to as DI) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment years involved are 1990-91, 1991-92, 1995-96 and 1996-97. A perusal of the separate orders passed under section 263 shows that these are identically worded and it is an accepted fact between the parties that in the assessment orders passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) it was held that the assessed had carried out charitable activities of general public utility during the assessment years under consideration and in view of the aforesaid, the income was to be treated as exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. It is apparent that the facts insofar as the four assessment years under appeal are concerned, are identical and for purposes of disposing of the present appeals, it would suffice in case the facts pertaining t...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »