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.
Bhartiya Ispat Udyog Mandir Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT400TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding the confiscation of the excess goods found in the factory premises of the appellants but has reduced the penalty on appellant No. 1 from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and on appellant No. 2, Director from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. However, he has not reduced the redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- as confirmed by the adjudicating authority.2. The learned Counsel has raised two fold contentions. Firstly that there was no proper physical verification of the goods as the excess number of the goods was arrived at, on average basis and not by physically counting the goods. Secondly that the redemption fine and penalty imposed are disproportionate to the amount of duty involved on the excess found goods.3. I have heard the learned DR and gone through the records. So far as the first contention of the Counsel ...
Bajrang Wire Products (India) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT333TriDel
1. This is an application by M/s. Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt.Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,85,71,358/- and penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants are engaged in drawing of wire from wire rods which they clear on payment of duty; that they also avail of the Cenvat credit of the duty paid on wire rods; that a show cause notice dated 4-2-2004 was issued to them stating that the process of drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture and, accordingly, the Cenvat credit wrongly taken by them is recoverable and the duty of more than Rs. 2.78 crores collected from their customers in the guise of Central Excise duty is to be deposited with the Department in terms of provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act; that under the impugned order, the Commissioner has directed them to deposit Rs. 2.78 crores approximately. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the re...
Commercial Engineers and Body Vs. Cc and Ce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC288Tri(Delhi)
1. Demand of duty of Rs. 4,97,623/- has been confirmed on parts of Light Recovery Vehicles falling under Chapter Heading 87.08 manufactured and cleared for captive consumption during the period January 1997 to January 2001 and penalty of equal amount has been imposed on the appellants herein. Demand arose as a result of denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification 67/95-CE to the parts on the ground that they were captivity consumed in the manufacture of special purpose motor vehicles, that is, Light Recovery Vehicles falling for classification under Chapter Heading 87.05 which are exemption from the whole of the duty of excise under Notification No.4/97 dated 1.3.1997, 5/98 dated 2.6.1998 and 6/2000 dated 1.3.2000.2. We have heard both sides. The first contention of the appellants is that majority of the demand is barred by limitation as almost the entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of limitation and the appellants had shown in their classification declarati...
Hankhul Packwel Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC290Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of HDPE tapes and fabrics. HDPE tapes are manufactured from HDPE granules. Same of the HDPE tapes are twisted during the process of winding of plastic tapes and because of some tapes getting wound in unsystematic manner cannot used on the looms for weaving of the fabrics. The dispute is regarding such twisted/wound tapes, which cannot be used on the looms for weaving of fabrics. The appellants were clearing the same by classifying under Heading 39.15 of Central Excise Tariff and availing the benefit under Notification No. 53/88. The Revenue was demanding duty after classifying the same under 39.20 of Central Excise Tariff as HDPE tapes.4. The contention of the appellant is that these tapes cannot be used on looms for manufacture of fabrics, therefore, as these are twisted in unsystematic manner these are only cleared as...
Rahul Mehra and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ268(Del); 114(2004)DLT323
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 'There must be no Alsatia1 in England where the King's writ does not run.'1. This writ petition has been filed in public interest claiming various reliefs against, inter alia, the Board Of Control For Cricket In India (Respondent No.2)(hereinafter referred to as ''BCCI'') and the Delhi and District Cricket Association (Respondent No.3)(hereinafter referred to as ''DDCA'') which is a member association of the BCCI. As claimed in the first paragraph of the petition, it has been filed to ensure that organizations such as BCCI and DDCA which have been created for the purpose of promotion of cricket in the country and which have acquired a monopoly status by virtue of alleged Government recognition and patronage, perform their duties and obligations which is to promote and develop cricket in the country and that they do not function as private empires of some businessmen and traders who have allegedly come to control it and abuse it for their own interests and profits....
Wg. Cdr. A. Bhakoo Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT25; 2005(79)DRJ14; 2006(1)SLJ219(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing and/or setting aside the adverse annual confidential report of the petitioner for the period of 1.10.2000 to 17.6.2001 and also the letter dated 10.4.2003, which is annexed to the petition as Annexure P-12 finding the petitioner unfit for promotion to the rank of Group Captain as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus with a further direction to the respondents to re-convene the Promotion Board 2/2002 and PB II/2003 to consider the case of the petitioner without taking into consideration the adverse entry recorded for the period 10/2000 to June 2001. 2. The petitioner was posted as Commanding Officer, 14 Squadron with effect from 26.4.1999. While he was so posted, the petitioner's annual confidential report for the period 1.10.2000 to 17.6.2001 was initiated and written by his Initiating Officer. Lawyer on the petitioner was informed on or about 1.5.2002 that the petitioner was found unfit for promoti...
Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Vice-chairman Vs. Saraswati C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR276(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT385; 2004(77)DRJ258
Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal impugns the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the objections of the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were dismissed. Mr.Anil Sapra, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has contended that payment in respect of the claims in the award has been made except under Claim Nos.13 and 18 and he restricts his arguments to the award made by the Arbitrator in respect of claim Nos. 13 and 18 and objections rejected by the learned Single Judge on that account. 2. Claim No.13 is a claim by the respondent for Rs.8,75,000/- on account of damages suffered due to non-release of clause 10 CC payment in due time, deviation from the index as applicable at the time of payment, late payment of running as well as final payment, release of security and withheld amount, idling of machinery as well as shuttering on account of late laying of conduit for casting of slabs, transportation and also deviation of quantities beyond agree...
Devender Singh Vs. Freedom Fighter Division and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT634; 2006(1)SLJ481(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition, seeks a direction to the respondents to release the freedom fighter pension to him from the date of its suspension along with interest. Further, quashing of letters dated 7.3.2002 and 2.7.2004, whereby the pension sanctioned to the petitioner had been suspended and cancelled, be quashed as null and void.2. Petitioner claims that a case bearing NARC OF GR No.46(8) OF 1942 was registered against him at Police Station Maner. He had been declared as an absconding person. Petitioner, thereforee, on 28.1.1982, applied for the grant of pension in his favor to respondent No.3. Petitioner also sought record of case GR No.46(8) of 1942, in respect of petitioner's taking part in the freedom movement from the Court of Special Magistrate, Danapur. The said record was not available. Petitioner, thereforee, led secondary evidence, as admissible under the Scheme and submitted the 'personal knowledge certificate' from District Veteran Freedom Fight...
Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Aaif and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: 26(2004)DLT115; (2005)139PLR1
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AAIFR dated 17.4.2001 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It was contended before us that the AAIFR has not taken into consideration the Report of M/s Radbin Consultants who were appointed to conduct Techno-Economic study pursuant to the order passed by the BIFR on 23.6.2000. It was contended that the Report of M/s Radbin Consultants was relevant and would have shown that the company has become sick on account of various unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It was also contended that the finding of the AAIFR that the accounts by the petitioner were doctored and manipulated was without any basis and was not on the basis of material produced before the AAIFR. It was contended by Mr. Nigum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the absence of any finding with regard to the concoction or manipulation of the account by the BIFR, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal without any...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC940; 115(2004)DLT191
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 5/2000 is directed against the order dated 26th September, 1999 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA-I-222/90, whereby the learned Tribunal has held the Railways liable to compensate the respondent for the shortfall in the transact of the consignment.2. The brief facts of the case as has been noted by the Tribunal are as under :'The brief facts as set out in the claim application are that the applicant company booked a consignment of 28 mm Untwisted Ribbed Steel Bars in 8 bundles, weighing 59.000 MTs, vide Railway Receipt No. 665345 dated 03.08.88, ex SCOB Siding, Burnpur to Badli, at Railway's risk rate. At destination, however, only 43.750 MTs of Untwisted Ribbed Steel Bars were delivered to the applicant, thus, there was a short delivery of 15.250 MTs, due to which the applicant suffered a loss of Rs.91,652.50. The applicant also incurred Rs.350/- as survey charges and Rs.4,575/- as stockyard remuneration. The applicant ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »