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.
Gopi Krishna Processors Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC824
1. M/s Gopi Krishna Processors Pvt. Ltd. the appellants, have two units namely Unit I and Unit II where they are engaged in the manufacture and processing of fabrics falling under Chapters 54, 55 and 60 of the Central Excise, Tariff Act, 1985. The units have installed a hot air stenter machine. The Stenter at unit I has five chambers whereas the one at Unit II has four chambers. The units also have a float drying machine which is installed at a distance of 50-60 metres from the hot air stenter.2. The issue involved in the present appeals is the determination of the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) of the appellants under Section 3A of the Act, read with the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 (for short Stenter Rules).3. In terms of the provisions of Section 3A read with the notifications issued thereunder, the ACP of the appellants was fixed by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise.4. In terms of the Notification No....
Bhisham Dev Vs. Estate Officer-iv, Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)352; 107(2003)DLT560
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of parties, these matters are taken up for final disposal. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits that no counter-affidavit would be necessary in this matter because purely legal questions arise for consideration of this Court. In this view of the matter, he has submitted written synopsis which is taken on record. These 9 writ petitions arise from a common order passed by the learned ADJ on 02.08.2003 in 9 separate appeals under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Common questions arise in these petitions. thereforee, the same are being disposed of together.3. The brief facts are that the Estate Officer in all of these petitions issued Section 4 notices under the said Act requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted on account of their being alleged unauthorised occupants. The petitioners replied...
Narinder Nath Sharma Vs. Smt. Shanit Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)595; 107(2003)DLT574; 2003(71)DRJ64
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The defendant No. 3 has moved the present applications on 18th September, 2002 for setting aside the final decree passed in suit for partition dated 27th January, 1998 and for condensation of delay in filing the above application. The case of defendant No. 3 put forward by learned counsel, Mr. Alakh Kumar is that he came to know of the passing of the final decree only on receiving the notice in execution application in March, 2002. This led the defendant to move the present application. Mr. Alakh Kumar submits that the plaintiff happens to be eldest brother in the family of Brahmins where there is a lot of respect shown to the elder brother. Learned counsel submits that defendant No. 3 was led through the garden path by the plaintiff by assuring that they would amicably resolve and settle the disputes. It is averred in the application that the plaintiff even promised to withdraw the suit and state that they would enter into a memorandum of settlement. It is stated ...
L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Usha India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: [2004]52SCL611(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Judgment Debtor No. 1 M/s Usha India Ltd. has moved the present application under Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `SICA`) for stay of the execution proceedings. Judgment Debtor No. 1 Company made a reference under Section 15 of the SICA before the BIFR on 17th January 2002, which was registered as case No. 117/2002. The BIFR conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 16 of the SICA and rejected the reference on 28.10.2002. The BIFR took the view that the losses claimed by the judgment debtor were not permissible as per the accounting standards and practices. The judgment debtor has preferred an appeal under Section 25 of the SICA before AAIFR on 26.12.2002, which is pending. 2. The judgment debtor in these facts contends that Section 22 of the SICA is attracted and the decree holder cannot seek or proceed with the recovery of the decretal amount of Rs. 2, 31, 25, 803/-, decreed on 6.9.2002. 3. Reply ...
New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Goverdhan Dass Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)225; 108(2003)DLT132
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 13/1994, which appeal arose out of the judgment and decree dated 12th January, 1994, passed by the Sub Judge in Suit No. 367/1993, whereby the Sub Judge had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge vide its judgment dated 30th September, 1998, on the ground that the trial court did not consider the fact that a registered notice, Exhibit PW 1/5, was issued by the counsel for the plaintiff regarding toll tax receipt No. 2743 and that the postal receipt is Exhibit PW 1/6 and the AD Card is Exhibit PW 1/7, The trial court also did not consider the reply from the Executive Officer, Kanya Kumari, Mark D-5, which is the verification of the toll tax receipt No. 2743 to bus No. DEP 2803 dated 28th June, 1982.2. The substantial question of law framed in this case vide order dated 23rd August, 1999, was :'Wheth...
Suneja Towers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ685
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action taken in respect of plot No. 7, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi by the respondents.2. The first relief is in respect of the notice dated 12.2.1998 determining the lease in favor of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in respect of this relief and, thus, the present remedy is not available to the petitioner.3. The other reliefs claimed for by the petitioner are as a consequence of the Estate Officer, respondent No. 2, taking proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act), 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act'). It is not disputed that a lease deed was executed in favor of the petitioner, which has been subsequently terminated.4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Unio...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Lucky Tour and Travels
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)1104
ORDERSikander Khan, A.M.:In this appeal revenue has raised the following grounds :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction on gross receipts under section 80HHD despite the fact that it has to be allowed on net receipt.'2. The assessed in this case is a company engaged in the business of booking hotels, tours and ticketing both domestic and international. It claimed deduction of Rs. 2,82,991 under section 80HHD. The total amount received in convertible foreign exchange was Rs. 22,35,280. The assessed had paid US $ 56,000 equivalent to Rs. 17,51,120 to M/s. Oriental Tours, Hongkong, towards expenses of seminar group. The assessing officer worked put the net foreign exchange received and brought in India by the assessed at Rs. 4,84,160 (Rs. 22,35,280 -17,51,120). He observed that deduction under section 80HHD is allowable on the net foreign exchange earning, ...
Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC836
1. The issue involved in these appeals, filed by M/s. Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd., is whether MODVAT Credit is available to them on the strength of gate passes endorsed thrice.2. Shri P. Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 232-233/2000 dated 14.7.99, has allowed them MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs on the basis of gate passes endorsed thrice following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.B.B. Organics Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, & C, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 701 (T); that, however, on appeals preferred by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground that the Board in circular No. 22/90-CX.8 dated 9.4.90 has clarified that the Tribnunal's decision in S.B.S. Organics Pvt.case is in variance with the Board's instructions dated 17.4.89, which may be considered as an exception and would be made applicable to the individual case, if any, and it could not be applicable ...
Ahmedabad Steelcraft Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT672TriDel
2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether waste and scrap generated during the month of August, 1997 is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 49/97-C.E., dated 1-8-1997.3. The Scheme of Compound Levy under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was introduced with effect from 1-8-1997 and subsequently the date of start of the Scheme was postponed to 1-9-97. The notification in question i.e. 49/97-C.E., dated 1-8-97 provides exemption to waste and scrap when such waste and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of products which paid duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. In the present case, admitted facts are that in the month of August, 97, Scheme of Compound Levy was not in operation. Therefore, the question of payment of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act could not arise.4. In these circumstances, waste and scrap arising during the month of August, 97 is not entitled for the benefit of Notification No.49/97-CE....
Chandra Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC772
1. The appellants imported 192 bales (34,319 metres) of fabric and filed Bill of Entry dated 2941-2000 at CFS, Ludhiana for clearance thereof, declaring the goods as 100% polyester warp knitted fabric falling under sub-heading 6002.43 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The declared CIF value of the goods was US $ 0.65 per metre on the basis of invoice dated 2-11-2000 issued by the foreign supplier, namely, M/s. ACE Trading, Dubai (UAE). The goods were examined by the DRI staff on 8-12-2000 and two representative samples were drawn from bale Nos. 96 and 185. The Chemical Examiner's report on the test samples read thus :- "The sample is a cut piece of (khaki/navy blue) coloured knitted looped pile fabric having ribbed surface on one side. It is wholly composed of polyester texturised multi-filament yarn." 2. The importer contested this test report by producing a report from the Textile Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, which certified the goods to be...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »