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.
Cc and Ce Vs. S and H Gears Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC159
1. This is an appeal, filed by Revenue, against Order-in-Appeal No.120/2003 dated 31.3.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat Credit on certain capital goods to M/s. S & H Gears Ltd. 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. I, however, observe that they have filed Cross Objection requesting for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue. I, therefore, heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR. and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has allowed the Modvat Credit in respect of capital goods namely Spider, spacer sleeves and bar grid, lifting bars, etc. on the ground that these are accessories of furnace and are being used as fixtures on which gears/pinions are fixed/placed before being put inside the furnace for heat treatment process. The learned SDR submitted that the impugned goods are not accessories of furnace as they have no role in its operation or function; that even in abs...
Scientific Sales Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC157
1. M/s. Scientific Sales have filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 89/2003, dated 31-3-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim being time-barred.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Oscilloscope and other measuring instruments and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs; that when the Central Excise Officers visited their factory on 29-1-95 they found that RG-23A, Part II register has been maintained up to date but Part I register was incomplete; that as per the direction of the officers the appellants debited Modvat credit in Part II register on 1-1-96 amounting to Rs. 83,814/- under protest; that they also submitted a letter dated 3-1-96 to the Supdt., Central Excise (Preventive) wherein it is mentioned that the Modvat credit has been debited by them under protest; that subsequently on advice that the Modvat credit was not to be reversed they filed a refund claim on 6-8-96. The Asstt. Comm...
Krishna Wire Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT491TriDel
1. Appellants in these 3 appeals are challenging a common Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar vide which they have been denied the Modvat credit of respective amounts as mentioned in the said order. The credit was taken on the basis of certain invoices issued by the dealer viz. M/s. Shobhit Impex, Abohar (Shobhit for short,). The appellants received the inputs, namely "electrolytic grade copper wire bars" for use in their' factory for manufacture of electric wires from Shobhit. However, the authenticity of the duty paying invoices issued to the appellants is doubted.2.1. The facts of the case are more or less similar in all three cases.However, by way of illustration, the same are extracted from the case of M/s. Krishna Wires, (Krishna for short) one of the appellants.2.2. Consequent to a search of office, godown and other premises of M/s. Shobhit Impex, by the Central Excise officials, show cause notice, dated 17-6-99 was issued to 12 manufacture...
Nehru Memorial Museum and Librar Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)279; 108(2003)DLT126; 2004(2)SLJ356(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. One of the issue arisen in this writ petition is impleadment of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court which practice has been followed in this Court for quite some time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others reported as : [1999]1SCR725 wherein in paragraph 14, this issue was dealt with in the context of judicial officers as follows:-'Before parting with this case, it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the special leave petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur are shown as respondents and in the special leave petition, they are shown as contesting respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ ...
Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Reena Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)17; AIR2004Delhi149; 107(2003)DLT262; II(2003)DMC656; 2003(71)DRJ47
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 732 of 2001 is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 11.10.2001 in H.M.A. No. 413/2001 whereby the learned Judge has fixed maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Rs. 20, 000/- per month together with litigation expenses of Rs. 15, 000/-.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount fixed towards maintenance is excessive and that the criteria adopted by the learned Judge is contrary to law inasmuch as the learned Judge has taken into consideration the income and status of the elder brother of the petitioner, Radhey Kishore Gupta, while arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is a man of means. It was also contended that the respondent on her own showing, had made a statement in a writ petition that her income is Rs. 6, 000/- which amount has also been ignored as also a sum of rupees one lac given by the petitioner. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to an application, being C.M. No. 93/2...
Arora Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Director General ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)649; 2004(1)CTLJ37(Del); 107(2003)DLT313; 2003(71)DRJ639
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioner company), which is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is doing the business of civil contractor. The petitioner No. 2 is its Director. The petitioner company was enlisted with the CPWD as Class I (B & R) contractor for the last 20 yeaRs. In fact such enlistment is done by the CPWD for a specific period and on the expiry of the said period, case is considered for revalidation of enlistment. This is how the enlistment of the petitioner company as Class I contractor is considered for revalidation of enlistment. This enlistment was expiring on 30th January, 2001. Vide letter dated 7th February, 2002 the CPWD informed the petitioner company that its enlistment would not be revalidated beyond 30th January, 2001. The petitioner company sent representation dated 18th February, 2002 against this refusal. However, this representation of the petitioner company is also rejected vid...
Mrs. Nisha Ribero Vs. Mr. George Mario Ribeiro
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)70; 108(2003)DLT48; II(2003)DMC807; 2003(71)DRJ763
ORDER1. This Reference has been made by the Additional District Judge under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 by his order dated 25.9.2001. By a judgment and order of the same date i.e., 25.9.2001, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the petition of the petitioner (wife) which had been filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 (George Mario Riberio) were married on 1.6.1992 in New Delhi under the Indian Christian Marriage Act,1872. Various allegations were made in the Petition. The respondent/husband filed a written statement on 30.11.2000. The case was posted on 4.1.2001 for conciliation but the Respondent No.1/husband did not turn up on that date and, accordingly, the respondents were proceeded ex parte thereafter. To prove her case the petitioner examined herself, her two brothers-in-law and her brother. On the basis of the unchallenge...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)137; 107(2003)DLT678; 2004(73)DRJ378
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.Crl.M. No. 5381/2003:Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Crl.M. (M.) No. 3976/2003 :1. By this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 293/2003, under Sections 381/34, IPC, P.S. Chandni Chowk.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's younger brother, Johny Kumar, who was working with Chhabra Trading Company, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was arrested on the allegations that he was taking one saree at the time of leaving the premises; on interrogation, he gave some disclosure statement involving his brother, both of them were arrested and were granted bail; stolen articles have already been recovered; petitioner moved an application before learned Additional Sessions Judge seeking pre-arrest bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed bail application by a non-speaking order, which reads:'22.9.2003 Present: Counsel for the applicant. APP for the State wi...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Abid Raza Zaidi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ218; 2004(2)SLJ369(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 15th October, 1999 by Labour Court No. III in I.D. No. 58 of 1993. The respondent No. 1 by his statement of claim had sought regularization as a Garden Chaudhary in M.C.D. The Labour Court while rejecting the plea of regularization but by noticing the long period over which respondent No. 1 had worked as a Garden Chaudhary since 2nd November, 1989 granted only the emoluments due to a Garden Chaudary.4. The main plea raised by Ms. Amita Gupta, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the MCD in challenge to the impugned award dated 15th October, 1999 is that the terms of reference do not entitle the workman/respondent No. 1 herein to claim the wages of a Garden Chaudhary. The relevant portion of the terms of reference reads as follows:-'Whether Sh. Abid Raza Zaidi is entitled to be regularised as Garden Chau...
Aerens Entertainment Zone Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jt. Cit and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: [2005]275ITR483(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J.Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.The quashing of criminal complaint under section 276AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is being sought on the ground that the petitioners were not liable to comply with the provisions of section 269UC of the Act and the complainant was also not competent to file the complaint. Thus in the perception of the petitioners, the summoning order is itself bad. The remedy at first instance available to the petitioners is by way of recalling of the summoning order and dropping of the proceedings as they are entitled to such relief even if the process of summons has been issued against them in the light of the following view taken by the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, : 1992CriLJ3779 :'It is open to the accused to plead before the magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »