Delhi Court October 2004 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC470; 116(2005)DLT439
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM 13486/2004 :This is an application for early hearing. The same is allowed and disposed of. The matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. FAO 282/1999 : This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th December, 1998 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal''), whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 16,154/- as compensation together with court fee of Rs. 872/- and Rs. 1,615/- as advocate's fee totaling Rs. 18,641/- within three months of the date of the order, failing which the same shall carry an interest @18% per annum. 3. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under : 'Applicant's case is that from a consignment of petroleum products booked from Khari C.Road to Shakurbasti under RR No. 273237 dated 20.10.93, one drum was found leaking t the destination. This resulted in a loss for which he has claimed compensation of Rs. 17,968/- There is no dispute about the title of the appl...
Sohan Singh Vs. Bachan Singh (Deceased)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT173; 2004(77)DRJ711
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.7.2003 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 594/99 whereby the learned Tribunal has upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while over-ruling the Controller on grounds under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the appeal under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the tenant has come to this court by way of SAO 2/2003.Being aggrieved of the reversal of the Additional Rent Controller's orders under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, the landlord has come up by way of a separate second appeal. 2. The facts of the case as have been noted by the Tribunal are as follows:- 'The respondent took the premises mentioned in para 8 of the petition on payment of rent of Rs. 1075/- per month besides water, electricity (power and light) charges as per the bill of local authority in June, 68. Respondent No. 1 ...
Tdi International India Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC337; 115(2004)DLT139; 2004(77)DRJ716
D.K. Jain, J.1. RULE D.B. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of order dated 5 May 2004 passed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI for short), Respondent No. 1 herein, to cancel the second Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short), issued on 30 January 2004, for award of contract for licensing indoor and outdoor advertisement sites at the international and domestic airports in the country. 4. To appreciate the controversy involved in the case, a brief reference to the background facts would be necessary. These are as follows: On 27/28 November 2003, the AAI invited tenders for licensing advertisement rights at international and domestic airports. A corrigendum dated 11 December 2003 was issued by the Executive Director (Commercial), AAI, the second respondent herein, notifying that the tender document...
Kjmc Global Market (India) Ltd. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir State Power Deve ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR178(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. In this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') time was given to file reply on 26.8.2004 but no reply has been filed. Accordingly the matter be taken up for disposal.2. The relevant arbitration clause 14 in the contract between the parties reads as follows:'Any dispute or difference between parties hereto or anyone claiming through or under them, at any time hereafter, in respect of construction or interpretation of any term or provision thereof and or other wise arising out of, relating to, concerning or touching this Agreement, the same shall be referred to Arbitration of two persons, one to be appointed by JKSPDC and the other to be appointed by KJMC and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as amended, shall apply to such arbitration. The Arbitrators will have summary powers. The venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi.'3. It is not in dispute that upon disputes enumerated in this peti...
Kanohar Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT129TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Kanohar Electricals Ltd. and Shri Adesh Singhal, Director, against the common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 211-213/CE/MRT-I/2004, dated 29-3-2004.2. Shri Praveen Sharma learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellant company manufacture electrical transformers and avail of credit of duty paid on inputs; that they also undertake repair work of old and used duty paid damaged transformers received from various sources; that they had imported TOBS which was sent to M/s. Apar Ltd. directly from place of import for processing on job work after furnishing an undertaking under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986; that some of the quantity of the transformer oil processed out of TOBS and received back by the Appellants was used in the repair of old and damaged transformer for which separate account was maintained; that no MODVAT credit was also availed of by them in respect of such quantity of Transformer Oil; that the Revenue has confirmed the dem...
Viva International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC189
1. In these four appeals, filed by M/s. Viva International and M/s.Tandon Sales Corporation, the issues involved are whether the goods imported by them are classifiable under sub-heading 5806.32 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by them or under sub-heading 5806.10 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and whether the value declared by them is liable to be enhanced.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants imported Velcro Tape (Hook and Loose Tape) from M/s. Canwin Enterprises Ltd., Taiwan Branch; that the Department has arbitrarily changed the classification of the product and enhanced the assessable value of the goods after the clearance of the goods; that the Department vide letter dated 20-12-2001 has treated the goods as woven pile fabrics and sought to enhance the value on the basis of Bill of Entry dated 19-1-2001 of M/s. Fancy Fashions. He, further, submitted that the goods imported by M/s. Fancy Fashions as wel...
Sicpa India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT339TriDel
1. M/s. SICPA India Ltd. has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 661/2003, dated 15-12-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim of Central Excise duty.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture printing inks; that the Government of India floated a global tender for the purchase of security printing ink; that they made an offer to supply 1381 MTs on a price subject to discount of 8%; that the Government of India placed an ad hoc order for a quantity of 165 MTs on 29-1-1996; that it was indicated in the order that the rates were subject to a discount of 8%; that the Appellants, under letter dated 30-11-96 informed the Bank Note Press that the discount of 8% was for a quantity of 1381 MTs and that for a quantity of 165 MTs, they would not be in a position to offer the said discount; that they commenced despatches of the printing ink from 16-12-96 and offered on their own a discount of 0.8% on the assurance ...
Genuine Spares (India) and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC951Tri(Delhi)
1. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur has enhanced the assessable value of goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 82 to Rs. 2,55,070 and Bill of Entry No. 83 to Rs. 15,55,311,confirmed differential duty demand of Rs. 5,60,655, confiscated goods, namely acrylic sheet off-cut and floor sweeping of plastics with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,40,000, imposed penalty of amount equal to the duty on the importer and penalties of Rs. 2,00,000 on the other two appellants who are partners of the importer. Hence these appeals.2. At the outset, Shri C. Harishankar, Learned Counsel, raises a preliminary plea that the duty demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation and there is no finding that that the appellants had knowledge of any under-valuation as they had purchased the goods at the price shown in the invoice received from their supplier and had no knowledge as to why their supplier M/s. Sineximco Pvt. Ltd. ...
Opel Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT64TriDel
1. In these six appeals, arising out of common Order-in-Original No.8/2004 dated 31-3-2004 and filed by M/s. Opel Alloys (P) Ltd. and their Directors and employees, the main issue involved is whether they had manufactured the excisable goods clandestinely and removed the same from their factory premises without discharging the duty liability.2.1 Shri Pradeep Jain, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture MS Ingots and avail of the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 9/2001-CE., dated 1-3-2001; that the entire Order-in-Original is based on the alleged private records seized from 301, Devika Chambers, Ghaziabad; that these documents make no mention of the Appellant-Company nor is there anything in those documents which can link them to the Appellant-Company; that the said Devika Chambers was never their premises; that the writer of the documents has not been identified nor any effort has been made to trace them. He, further, mentioned that the only...
Ghaziabad Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT329TriDel
1. M/s. Ghaziabad Organics Ltd. are challenging the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty by this Appeal.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and discharged the duty liability on fortnightly basis under the Central Excise Rules; that the scrutiny of the returns for the period January, 2001 to March, 2001 revealed that they had paid the duty amounting to Rs. 10,30,893/- from their CENVAT account which was not available on due dates; that accordingly the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equivalent amount of penalty which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Learned Advocate submitted that as per the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, the duty for the first fortnight of the month was payable by the 20th and Central Excise duty for the second fortnight of the month was payable by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »