Delhi Court December 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.
Darshan Vanaspati Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(119)LC332Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the denial of modvat credit on oxygen compressor and thrister controlled transformer rectifier on the ground (i) that the reasons given by the lower authorities for denying the credit are beyond the scope of show cause notice, (ii) that the oxygen compressor is used to compress the hydrogen gas and transformer rectified is used for manufacture of hydrogen gas from the electrolytic cells when the DC current is produced through this rectifier. It was held by the lower authorities that since the hydrogen gas is used captively for manufacture of hydrogenerated edible oil, therefore it is exempted under notification No. 67/95 dated 16.3.1995. Hence, it is not entitled for credit. The appellants pleaded that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued circular F. No. B-4/7/2000-TRU, dated 3.4.2000 and Circular No.665/56/2002-CX dated 25.9.2002 clarifying that Cenvat credit should not be denied if inputs are used in any intermediate pro...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT371TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether duty liability is to be dispatched by M/s. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. while clearing the waste and scrap of capital goods and inputs.2. We heard Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the respondents.Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand on waste and scrap of capital goods i.e. MS scraps, plastic HDPE waste and paper scrap; that provisions of Rule 57F(18) and Rule 57S(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provide for payment of Central Excise duty on waste arising from the processing of inputs in respect of which credit has been taken and payment of duty where capital goods are sold as waste and scrap; that the process of wear and tear and dismantling of inputs/capital goods amounts to manufacture because, as a result of this process a new and distinct commodity namely, waste and scrap which ...
Hitkari Fibres Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC78
1. These two appeals filed by the appellants were against the same Order-in-Appeal No. 32/AKG/GGN/2003.2. The central excise officers visited the premises of the appellants at A-10, Ansal Palam Udyog, Sector 18, Gurgaon (referred to as dealing unit) holding central excise licence for first stage dealer. On verification of the their stock and record, the officers found that stock of 2392 pieces of carpets received by the appellants were without payment of duty and these were also not recorded in their RG-23D account. Officers, therefore, visited the manufacturing unit of the appellants at plot No. 42 Phase-I Udyog Vihar Gurgaon and found that these goods were cleared without payment of duty and without issue of invoice. The manufacturing unit paid duty on these goods under PLA entry No. 238 dated 10.9.2000. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued to the manufacturing unit as well as dealing unit proposing to seize the goods and to impose penalty on the appellants. The deputy Commiss...
Metcot India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC304
1. Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants were denied the Modvat credit of Rs. 47,738/- on the ground (i) that the credit was taken by the appellants for which RG 23A Part-I was not maintained, (ii) the goods were clandestinely removed and for which certificate under Rule 57E(2) of the Rules cannot be granted and (iii) the certificate was granted for a sum of Rs. 50,250/- but credit was taken only for Rs. 47,738/- and no evidence was produced by the appellants that previously no credit was taken on the said inputs. It was pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority while disallowing the credit, has gone beyond the scope of; show cause notice as in the show cause notice the ground for denial of the credit was that (1) as per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57E shall not apply in cases where the additional amount of duty becomes recoverable from the manufacturing inputs on account of...
Sudhir Kumar Khurana Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC9
1. First respondent Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 180/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against the appellant herein (3rd defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate-defendant') and three others. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order dated 1.5.2002. The appellant-defendant filed an application dated 21.11.2002 before the DRT to set aside the ex parte final order passed against him. The appellant-defendant also filed an application to condone the delay in filing the above said application. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 25.2.2003, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte final order.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal to set aside the order dated 25.2.2003. The respondent Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal, to which the appell...
Naresh Kochhar Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC1
1. Respondent Punjab and Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 66/99 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against appellant (2nd defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant defendant'). The appellant defendant filed an application (Miscellaneous Application 646/2004) before the DRT requesting the DRT to direct the respondent Bank to file the recast statement of accounts giving certain particulars as mentioned in the said application. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 25.5.2004, dismissed the said application observing that the application has been filed by the defendant stating that the Bank has not filed the complete statement of accounts, that there is no need to issue any notice of this application to the respondent Bank since the case was fixed on that date for passing the final order. So observing, the DRT rejected the said application.2. Aggr...
Canara Bank Vs. Laxmi Food Industries and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC209
1. Appellant-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Bank') has filed O.A. 241/1999 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against respondents 1 to 3, 5, 6 and another for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it. The appellant-Bank filed I.A. 2/2000 before the DRT with the prayers to appoint a Receiver to take possession of the hypothecated plant and machinery, the details of which have been given in para 5(vii) of the O.A., to appoint a Commissioner for the preparation of inventory of the hypothecated stocks, plant and machinery lying at the office of the 1st defendant at 1-5 and 1-6, Surajpur Industrial Area, Site-C, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., and to restrain the 7th respondent herein, namely, Small Industries Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the SIDBI') from selling the plant and machinery, which are hypothecated with the appellant-Bank, the details of which have been given in...
Ravinder Singh Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC180
1. Respondent Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 482/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (here in after referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant defendant'), and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order dated 25.4.2003 against the appellant defendant for the recovery of the amount due to the respondent Bank. The appellant defendant filed the Miscellaneous Application 24/2003 for setting aside the ex parte final order, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned order dated 28.10.2003.2. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal, and the respondent Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal. The appellant has also filed a rejoinder.3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant defendant contends that the appe...
Som Dutt Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT479; 2006(2)SLJ105(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order of termination passed against the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, by order dated March 12, 1999. A copy f the said order is annexed as `Annexure-1'to the writ petition. It is stated in the said communication that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force w.e.f. May 4, 1997 and that the said petitioner was considered unsuitable to continue in Government Service. Consequently it was ordered that under the terms and conditions laid down in the CISF Act 1968 and the Rules framed there under and in exercise of the powers conferred on the Deputy Inspector General of police vide clause 2(a) of agreement executed by him under Rule 15 of the CISF Rules 1969, the service of the petitioner was terminated.2. It is also to be noted here that the petitioner was initially appointed on probati...
Manohar Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT469; 2006(2)SLJ98(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In this writ petition a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents contending, inter alia, that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and, thereforee, this writ petition cannot be entertained by this court. In support of the said preliminary objection raised by the respondents, it was pointed out that what is challenged in the present writ petition is the order passed by the Commandant on 27th May, 2000 awarding to the petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal before his Appellate Authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force. The said appeal was considered and disposed of by the Appellate Authority located in Allahabad, U.P by issuing an order from Allahabad, UP which is dated 5th December, 2000. The petitioner could have filed a revision petition as against the afore...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »