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.
Prayag Polytech P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT327TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of colouring matter and master batches. Central Excise Officers visited their unit on 3-2-2000 and took a stock of finished products lying in the factory. This revealed an excess of about 18 MTs. (2 varieties). The goods were seized and the Show Cause Notice dated 26-72000 was issued alleging that "The assessee appears to have deliberately not accounted for the excess stock of finished goods for facilitating clandestine removal and if Central Excise Officers, had not visited the unit on 3-2-2000, the finished goods found in excess could have been cleared clandestinely at opportune moment and had thereby evaded duty. Thus, it appears that the assessee has fallaciously misstated the fact to the department fraudulently with intent to evade payment of duty. The assessee also appears to be withholding entries of excisable goods in statutory records to suit his designs for facilitating evasion and by not being factual and regular in making entries in statu...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT454TriDel
1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the respondents.2. The learned JDR has contended that, at the relevant time, the Notification No. 27/2000-C.E. (N.T.) was in force under which the availment of Mod-vat credit by an assessee/purchaser of the inputs, was restricted to a specified rate, therefore, the respondents could not take full Modvat credit on the inputs received by them after the issuance of this notification and they could only take credit to the extent specified therein.3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. In my view, the contention raised by the learned JDR cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that this Notification No. 27/2000-C.E. (N.T.), referred to above, was never relied upon in the show cause notice by the Revenue for denying the Modvat credit to the respondents. The Revenue only relied upon the Notification No. 6/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ipca Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT33TriDel
1. This order will dispose of all the above captioned three appeals which have been directed by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the three refund claims of the respondents.2. The learned SDR has contested the correctness of the impugned order on two grounds; firstly that the assessments of the respondents were final and since they did not challenge the assessment orders, could not claim the refund of the duty. He has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of S. Kumars Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, 2002 (141) E.L.T. 146; Hindustan Wires Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II, 2003 (151) E.L.T.679; and Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, 2004 (172) E.L.T. 33. He has also relied upon the Ministry's Circular bearing No.354/81/2000/TRU, dated 30-6-2000 under which the respondents were required to ask for the provisional assessment before the clearance of the goods, which they did not do.3. Secondly, that the doctrine of unjust enrichme...
Madho Singh Rathore Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: IV(2006)BC238
1. This is an application under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking waiver of the deposit.2. First respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Original Application 427/1996 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT' against the appellant (defendant No. 10 in the Original Application and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and others for the recovery of Rs. 65,35,632.09 with interest. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by his order dated 20th August, 2002, passed the final order directing the appellant-defendant and others to pay the said amount c with interest and costs. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred the appeal and this application under Section 21 of the Act seeking waiver of the amount to be deposited in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The respondent No. 1 Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this appli...
Trg Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chzk-dormash Services and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi139; 114(2004)DLT243
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is an application made by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 2 and 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking directions of the court asking the defendants to remove grader from the site after furnishing the appropriate security or in the alternative to appoint Receiver to take charge of the grader and sell the same in the open market and deposit the sale proceed in the court.2. Before dealing with this application it is necessary to give details of the facts in brief.3. The plaintiff company was awarded the work of construction of 44 to 59.5 Km Lucknow-Kanpur Road. To enable the plaintiff to complete the work, the plaintiff required highly efficient and technically sound working machineries for smooth, timely and speedy execution of the work. Defendant No.3, representing itself as authorized dealer in Russian make Motor Grade DZ 180 fully hydraulic manufactured by defendant No.1 to be supplied by defendant No.2, approached the plaintiff with the specification, effici...
Novartis Ag Vs. Wander Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi154; 114(2004)DLT625; 2004(77)DRJ520
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. By this application the defendant is seeking extension of time to perform certain obligations in respect of settlement between the parties dated 20th August, 2002 approved by this Court. It is not in dispute that the settlement was arrived at by virtue of a joint application by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The principal submission of Mr. Chandhiok, learned counsel for the applicant/defendant is that he is seeking extension of time only by 12 days to comply with the conditions imposed by the said terms of settlement. Thus the question of law which has been raised and arises for determination is the power of this Court to extend the time and alter terms of settlement between the parties notwithstanding the opposition by one of the parties to the settlement. The learned senior counsel for the applicant Mr. Chandhiok has relied upon provisions of Section 148 CPC to contend that where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescr...
R.C. Chatrath Vs. Hitkari Bross of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT214; 2005(79)DRJ278
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is an application of the defendant under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the sole ground that the defendant firm against whom suit has been instituted has since been dissolved on 15th November,1999 because of death of one of the partners namely Sh. K.P. Kapoor and that since partnership was at will, thereforee, on the death of Sh. K.P. Kapoor, the same has since been dissolved. Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand while repelling such arguments urged that the plaintiff can maintain suit even against the dissolved firm if right had accrued to the plaintiff at the time when firm was in existence. He fortifies his argument on the strength of averments made in the plaint and urged that the cause of action initially arose in favor of the plaintiff in the year 1994 when he allowed his share to remain in the partnership firm on the request of remaining partners and thereforee even if one of the partners had died ...
Smt. Premlata Gandhi and ors. Vs. Smt. Nimmi Gandhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT259; 2004(77)DRJ335
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 CPC by the defendant seeking stay of the suit primarily on the ground that previously instituted between the same parties is pending before the Calcutta High Court and that the matter in issue involved in the suit in hand is also directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit between the same parties at Calcutta High Court and thereforee according to the defendant the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC.2. The defendant while making this application has also annexed copy of the plaint of Calcutta High Court.3. The plaintiffs have filed reply to this application repudiating the averments made in the defendant's application and claiming that two suits , one filed by the defendant at Calcutta and another filed by the plaintiff in Delhi are not alike in nature nor the matter in issue in both the suits are directl...
Shri Rajiv Dang Vs. Ongc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT619; 2005(79)DRJ149; 2006(1)SLJ475(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to respondent No.1/ONGC to promote him to category E-4 as Superintending Engineer (C) with retrospective effect i.e., from or prior to the date when his first junior was promoted to that post. Petitoner also seeks a direction to the respondent to consider him for further promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (C) as may fall due prior to promotion of respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are his juniors in service. 3. This case has a chequered history. It would be appropriate to briefly recapitulate the relevant facts.4. Petitioner, who was working as a Dy.Superintending Engineer with ONGC tendered his resignation on 2.1.1997. The said resignation was withdrawn on 22.12.1997. It is the petitioner's case that even though the resignation had been withdrawn, respondent/ONGC purported to accept the same w.e.f. 5.11.1998. Petitioner c...
Sh. Raj Kumar Vs. Sh. Brij Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: 19(2004)DLT115
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2002 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal has set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.5.1995 whereby the Additional Rent Controller had dismissed the application of the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The application under Section 19 of the S.R.C. Act for re-entry had also been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal are as follows:-'The facts giving rise to the present appeal are the Mool Chand predecessor of the respondent preferred a petition for eviction against the appellant bearing No.-E-344 of 1991 Mool Chand v. Smt.Ram Devi under section 14(1)(A)(b) and (e) of D.R.C.Act. During the pendency of said petition Mool Chand died and his legal represents viz. the respondents were brought on record. In the said petition an eviction order was passed by Shri M.L.Mehta, Addl.Rent...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »