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.
K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(119)LC35Tri(Delhi)
1. There is a duty demand of abou Rs. 4.5 lakhs and also a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The case relates to los of molasses due to leakage of tank. Appellant sought remission unde Rule 49(1). The claim has been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that it was due to negligence of the party (adequate measure were not taken in time for repair of the steel tank) and for that reason, remission is not available. The submission fo the appellant is that upon noticing the leak in time the appellant had taken whatever step was possible to prevent the leak. It is being submitted that loss is on account of natural reason and remission of duty is required to be allowed in respect of molasses so lost. Reliance is also being placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation v.CCE Allahabad . As against this, the learned DR ha brought to my notice the decision of the Tribunal in the case c Balarampur Chinni Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad 2002 (148) ELT 1172 (T) : 200...
United Business Machines Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC755
1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together.2. The appellants made import of old and used main frame assemblies of photocopier. The appellant filed Bills of Entry. The declared value was not accepted by the Revenue and on the basis of Chartered Engineer Certificate, the value of the goods was enhanced and goods were also confiscated on the ground that the import was made in violation of the Exim Policy as old and used parts of machines requires Special Import Licence.3. The appellants are not contesting the confiscation of the goods in violation to the Exim Policy, therefore, the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act is upheld.4. In respect of enhancement of value of the imported goods, the contention of the appellant is that the appellant also produced a Chartered Engineer Certificate in respect of the goods in question and as per the Chartered Engineer Certificate, the value of the goods is same as mentioned in th...
C.C.E. Vs. Siddharth Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT189TriDel
1. The Revenue's appeal seeks setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) and restoring of the Order-in-Original.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer availing himself of input credit. On 13.7.99, the jurisdictional superintendent reversed credit of over Rs.3,03,819/- in their RG-23A part II (Modvat credit register). Respondent sent complaint against it on the very next day to the Commissioner, Chairman of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of Ujjain. Since no action was taken, they filed a refund application which was rejected by the original authority with the following observation: "M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd., Sarangpur Distt., Rajgarh (M.P.) hereinafter referred to as the "Party") have filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,03,819/- on 27.08.99 on the grounds highlighted hereunder. The party has alleged that an amount of Rs.3,03,819/- was forcefully debited by the Superint...
Prashant India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Indian Renewal Energy
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC93
1. Respondent-Indian Renewal Energy Development Agency Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent herein') filed O.A. 16/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellants (being defendants 1 to 6, hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellants-defendants') for the recovery of Rs. 3,66,59,941/- with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned final order dated 5.2.2002, accordingly directed the appellants-defendants to pay the said amount jointly and severally with interest and costs. Aggrieved, the appellants-defendants have preferred the appeal, and this application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking waiver of the deposit to be made in terms of the said Section 21 urging that the 1st appellant-defendant has been sick since 1998, and its financial resources are too weak to deposit 75% of...
Motorola Inc Vs. Modi Wellvest
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR650(Delhi); [2006]132CompCas656(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT524; 2005(79)DRJ173
Mukul Mudgal, J.1.This order will dispose of the preliminary issue raised by the judgment debtor, M/s Modi Wellvest Private Limited(in short hereinafter referred to as `JD' or `MWPL') to the effect that the present execution petition to enforce a foreign award against it does not lie within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and should be dismissed on this ground. 2. The decree holder, M/s Motorola, Inc.(in short the `DH') has moved this Court for an execution/enforcement of a New York Convention award as per Explanationn to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(in short the `1996 Act'). 3. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, the learned senior counsel, appearing for MWPL has contended inter alias as under:- (a) that primarily the DH has filed the execution petition in this Court on the basis that a Shareholder Guarantee, containing the arbitration clause had been executed between the parties at New Delhi. (b) that the primary assets of the MWPL are 51% of the shares of t...
Smt. Bimla Devi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT675; [2005(104)FLR553]
Manmohan Sarin, J.1.The petitioner who had completed her senior secondary schooling and belongs to Jat community was appointed as Mali on 14.8.2000. It was a case of compassionate appointment. Petitioner on account of her qualifications, says that she meets the eligibility condition for the post of LDC. It is the petitioner's case that work of provident fund calculations, which is the duty assigned to a clerk, was being got done from her during the period from 19.10.2000 to 13.7.2004 Petitioner's case is that though performing the duties of clerk and being possessed of requisite qualifications for the post of LDC and despite an LDC position, being available, petitioner had been continued on the post of Mali. 2. It is urged that upon petitioner filing the writ petition in this Court, the respondents immediately thereupon assigned the job of Mali to the petitioner. Petitioner has also produced on record the order dated 19.10.2000, posting the petitioner in Accounts Department. 3.The Cour...
His Holiness Shamar Rimpoche Vs. Lea Terhune and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi167; 2005(79)DRJ465
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Issues which generate public debate often lead to articles and books which may be found defamatory and offensive by some and yet be held out to be the truthful assertion by the author. The question in dispute which gives rise to the present suit is as to who is the real 17th Karmapa of Karmo Kargu Sect of Tibetan Buddisim. 2. According to the plaint the plaintiff is the 13th Incarnate of the Shamarpa, an important lama of the Karma Kgyu sect of the Tibetan Buddhism. The plaintiff came to India with the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa in the year 1959 and stayed in Rumtek, Sikkim 3. The suit is founded on the following pleas a) the defendant No.1 Lea Terhune, the author was said to be the Secretary of Tat Situ Rimpocha (TSR) who still remains banned from entering Sikkim by the Government of India and the book in question ''KARMAPA THE POLITICS OF REINCARNATION' and efforts to publish it in India have led to the filing of the present suit. Thus the defamatory allegations of which ...
Nb. Sub. Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT648; 2005(80)DRJ428; 2006(1)SLJ400(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.By filing present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 14th July, 2001 and 21st July, 2000 giving promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Nb. Subedar only with effect from 1st January, 2000 with seniority from 1s of August, 1997 but not granting any benefits of promotion from 1st August, 1997 as payment of salary and other emoluments from the said date in the post of Nb. Subedar. 2.The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 19th March, 1983 as Sepoy. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Havaldar on 1st August, 1989. While working in the aforesaid capacity, a Summary Court Martial was initiated against the petitioner for a offence under Sections 41(i), 39(a) and 63 of the Army Act. After completion of the said Court Martial, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction of the ranks, rigorous imprisonment for one year in civil prison and also dismissal from the service. 3.Aggrieved by the finding and sent...
WavIn India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT101; 2005(79)DRJ279; 2005(98)ECC743; 2005(184)ELT254(Del)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. By filing this writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refund to the petitioners the duty drawback at the rate of 98% under the provisions of Section 74(1) of the Customs Act,1962 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). 2. The facts relevant to these proceedings required to be noted are as under. The petitioners, engaged in the manufacturing activity, imported machine from Germany and on installation it was realised that the machine was not operating satisfactorily and cannot be used for the purpose of production. Different parts of the machinery were imported vide different bills of entry in the year 1990 (to be precise from 11.5.1990 to 24.6.1991) as noted in the Order No. 731/95 made by the Government of India. They were re-exported under claim of supplementary drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act,1962 on 23.9.19...
V.K. Malhotra Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director Rural Electrifica ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT654; 2005(80)DRJ375; 2006(1)SLJ404(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition filed in September, 2004 seeks quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 12th March, 1998, 11th March, 2003 and 27th August, 2003.2. By order dated 12th March, 1998, petitioner's representation dated 12th November, 1997 was rejected. Petitioner claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Director from the date his junior, prior to his reversion, was promoted. Subsequent applications and petitions were rejected by the Competent Authority vide orders dated 12th March, 2003. The last one being the communication dated 27th August, 2003, by which petitioner was informed that his request for reconsideration of restoration of his seniority in the grade of Section Officer and promotions thereafter, had been re-examined and could not be acceded to.3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly noted.(i) Petitioner had been employed with respondents as U.D.C w.e.f. 6th November, 1973. He was promoted as Section Offic...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »