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.
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Ramco Confectionery (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT79TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue centres around the question as to whether the confiscation of the unaccounted goods lying in the factory premises of the respondents could be ordered or not after having been released provisionally to them during the adjudication proceedings. The adjudicating authority only imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules for non-accountal of the goods and refused to order the confiscation of those goods on the ground that those were not available for having been released to the respondents provisionally.That order has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). But in my view, the ground on which the confiscation of the seized unaccounted goods had been refused by the authorities below is not legally tenable in view of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 wherein it has been ruled that even ...
Cce Vs. Arvind Steel and Agro Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC33
1. In this appeal, which has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has questioned the dropping of the penalty of Rs. 10,000 confirmed on the respondents under Rule 173Q, by the adjudicating authority, while confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 49,193, on account of shortage of the raw material and finished goods.2. The respondents have filed the cross objections wherein they have reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. They prayed for the decision on merits.3. The learned JDR has contended that the penalty under Rule 173Q could not be dropped against the respondents for the simple reason that they deposited the duty before issuance of show cause notice. According to him, this deposit was not voluntary, but it was on the asking by the Officers of Central Excise.4. I have gone through the record and the contention of learned JDR deserves to be accepted. The Officers of Central Excise on checking detected the shortage of 24.250 MT of ...
S.P. Packagings Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC542
2. Shri Pankaj Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that both the applicants manufacture PET Bottles; that the bottles manufactured by B.R. Oil Mills were inscribed with the words BRPET, BR PET HAR EXC, BR PET HAR EXADCPL; that similarly bottles manufactured by M/s. S.P.Packagings were inscribed with the words SP-PET, SP PET HAR EXC, and SP PET HAR EXADCPL; that in the month of June, 2000, the dyes of both the applicants needed to be reconditioned and were sent to M/s. Kuldeep Engineering Works; that after the dyes were repaired, due to oversight, the dyes of B.R. Oil Mills were sent to the factory of M/s. S.P.Packaging and the dyes of S.P. Packaging were sent to B.R. Oil Mills as the dyes of both the applicants were of the same size and shape; that the applicants could not detect the fact of dyes having been exchanged and they started using the same for manufacturing PET bottles; that the Additional Commissioner under the impugned Order has confirmed the demand of duty on the ground ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Select Impex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC316
1. Challenge in these appeals at the instance of Revenue is against the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Bombay dated 14-2-2001. The first respondent is the exporter and respondents No. 2 and 3 are Directors. The respondents No. 4 and 5 are Central Excise Officers who had inspected the goods brought for export. The dispute arising in this case is whether out of 1957 watches which were exported by the first respondent 1956 watches were pocket watches with gold chains and one wrist watch with gold strap or whether 1956 watches exported were wrist watches with gold chains/straps and one was a pocket watch with gold chain.2. During the period January and February, 1999 M/s. Select Impex Ltd., the first respondent herein exported 1957 Quartz Analog Watches with 22 ct. Gold chain/straps to Hong Kong via Dubai under 31 Shipping Bills.There was a claim for DEPB benefit. Before effecting exports Select Impex Ltd. had obtained permission from Bombay Customs for examinatio...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Concept Data Management (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)621
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 14th May, 1999 for asst. yr. 1992-93.2. Shri R.R. Prasad, senior Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of the Revenue whereas Shri R.P. Garg and Shri Vijay Gupta, Chartered Accountants represented the assessee.3. Ground No. 1, raised by the Revenue, challenges the direction of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the claim of software development expenses amounting to Rs. 6,76,000.3.1 The learned senior Departmental Representative pointed out that the learned CIT(A) has not assigned any reason in deleting the disallowance and the findings have been recorded without appreciating the true nature of the accounts of the assessee. He also submitted that its software programs if prepared then the same will last at least 4-5 years and therefore, the assessee will derive benefit of enduring nature. In support, he also placed reliance on the ratio of decision in the case of CIT v. Arawali Construction Co...
Sh. Mohd Salim Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)458; 107(2003)DLT370; 2003(70)DRJ663
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, inter alia, quashing the order dated 09.04.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd) whereby the petitioner's dealership was terminated invoking clause 58 (m) of the Dealership Agreement/Petrol/HSD Pump dealership Agreement with immediate effect. At the outset, the learned counsel Mr Kalra submitted that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. He submitted that the retail outlet of the petitioner was at Sarendhi district, Agra (UP). The letter of termination was also issued by the respondent No. 3 from Lucknow to the petitioner at Sarendhi. The entire cause of action with regard to the termination of the retail outlet, according to Mr Kalra, has occurred in Agra. The inspection which resulted in the drawal of samples was also carried out at the petitioner's retail outlet at Agra itself. Accordingly, he submitted that t...
Krishan Chander and P.O. Bhainswal Kalan Vs. Delhi Transport Corporati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(71)DRJ11
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule. 2. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Baljeet Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2000 II AD (Delhi) 88 and Shri Kuldeep Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation CW.1137/96 decided on 13.8.2002 as well as catena of cases decided by Supreme Court in Kunwar Pal Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1864/2000 arising out of SLP (C) 7997/99 and recent judgment of Supreme Court in Kunal Singh Vs . Union of India : (2003)IILLJ735SC . 3. In view of specific provision of the Section 47 of the Act, I do not agree with the argument of counsel for the respondent that there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The petitioner was prematurely retired on 9.9.96. Petitioner filed the appeal on 24.4.97. The appeal of the petitioner was decided on 5.11.98. When the Act which was a beneficial piece of legislation for the employees who are entitled for benefit in view of Section 47 of the said Act the respondent canno...
Phool Service Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)556; 2004(1)CTLJ181(Del); 107(2003)DLT571; 2003(71)DRJ17
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner, a partnership concern having a retail outlet/petrol pump at Dibai Road, Shikarpur, District-Bulandshahr (U.P.) has approached this Court for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the letter dated 26.06.2003 issued by the Assistant Manager (Sales), Noida of the respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd whereby the petitioner was advised to close the sales till further advice from the respondent's divisional office at Agra. The petitioner has also sought an appropriate writ, order or direction for restraining the respondents from taking any action pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.07.2003 issued by the Sr Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondent (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd) from Agra without first comparing the samples drawn from the petitioners retail outlet/petrol pump with the mother/reference sample. The petitioner has also sought restoration of supply of petrol/diesel to its retail outlet/petrol pump.2...
Jagdamba Prasad Badoni Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)486; I(2004)BC424; 108(2003)DLT180; 2003(71)DRJ533; 2003(3)JCC318
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.2003 holding the appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') and the order dated 6.2.2003 sentencing him to undergo RI for 15 days and directing him to deposit Rs. 30,000/- as compensation payable to the complainant by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in complaint case No. 1779/2002 Gajendra Rawat v. Jagdamba Prasad. 2. The case set up by the complainant (respondent No. 2) before the Metropolitan Magistrate was that he had given a personal loan to the appellant (accused), who in discharge of the said liability issued a cheque on 31.12.1998 drawn on PNB, Khan Market, New Delhi of Rs. 20,000/- (Ex.CW-2/1); when the cheque was sent for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks 'insufficient funds' vide memo dated 5.5.1999; and legal notice dated 15.5.1999 sent by the complainant to the appellant was returned bearin...
Shakuntala Monga and ors. Vs. N.M.W. Products and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)138; 107(2003)DLT671; 2003(70)DRJ754; 2003(27)PTC278(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners Smt. Shakuntala Monga and others have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 27th September, 1993 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their opposition to the registration of the trade mark applied for by the respondent.2. On 5th May, 1978, the respondent filed an application registered as No. 336284 for Registration of Trade Mark consisting of letters 'N.M.W.' and the word'HIRAMAN' in Class-6 for the goods 'locks and pad-locks'. It was claimed that the respondent was using the said trade mark since the year 1974. Disclaimer in respect of the letters 'N.M.W.' was given by the respondent and eventually the application was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal. Petitioners lodged a notice of opposition on 17th December, 1980 objecting to the registration on the ground that they were the registered proprietors of the trade mark 'HARRISON' vide the Registration No. 195667 in respect of locks and pad-locks. They were continuousl...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »