Delhi Court February 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.
Delta Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT209; 2004(73)DRJ417; 2004(93)ECC322; 2004(173)ELT449(Del)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is as under:'Whether the provision of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 completely bars the Commissioner ( Appeals) from condoning the delay beyond a period of 30 days even in a deserving case and that despite the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) is it incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits ' 2. The facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:3. The order in original was made on 5th November, 2001, after hearing the petitioner whereby the demand was confirmed with interest. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) being Appeal No. CCA/424/ACU/2002. The order impugned was received by the appellant on 7th November, 2001. From the order made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), it transpires that the appeal was filed on 13.4.2002; a notice was issued on 14.8.2002, calling u...
Cce Vs. Gahoi Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC538
1. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced the duty and set aside the penalty.2. The learned SDR has contended that the Director of the respondents' company, in his statement had conceded the nonaccountal of excess goods as well as shortage of the raw material and that the respondent even debited the entire duty amount before the issuance of the show cause notice, therefore, the duty amount could not be reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing that the excess goods were manufactured out of the material found short. She has also contended that the penalty could not be set aside as the duty was not deposited voluntarily but only after the shortage of the raw material and excess of the finished goods were detected by the Officers of the Department.Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned counsel has contended that there is no allegation an...
Himachal Futuristic Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT519TriDel
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd. seeking relevant information for making submission against levy of Anti-Dumping Duty vide Notification No. 24/1/99-DGAD, dated 3-11-99 and Notification dated 14-6-2000 issued by the respondent. According to the applicant, the present application is made pursuant to the direction contained in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v.Designated Authority reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 673 (S.C.). While remanding the matter for further consideration by this Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that this Tribunal will be at liberty to decide whether any material which has been placed before the Designated Authority is required to be kept confidential.2. According to the application the informations sought in the present application are not required to be kept confidential and they are entitled to have access to the same before this Tribunal proce...
Sardar Associates Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC319
1. During the relevant period, the appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots and billets, were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under that Scheme, they were paying duty periodically under Rule 96ZO (3) on the basis of the Annual Capacity of Production determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. They were eligible for abatement of duty for any continuous period of 7 days in the event of non-operation of their induction furnace, under Rule 96ZO (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Act. The appellants filed two abatement claims for the periods 25.10.97 to 1.11.97 and 2.12.97 to 9,12.97 with the jurisdictional Commissioner. Both the claims were rejected by the Commissioner. Hence the present appeal.2. Heard the DR. The appellants are not present, nor represented. They have waived the right to be heard.3. The abatement claim for the ...
Krishna Mohan Beverages and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC313
1. The appellants are manufacturers of aerated waters and beverage syrups falling respectively under Chapters 22 and 21 of the CETA Schedule. In terms of Notification No. 21/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-2-99, the appellants were entitled to take credit of Special Excise Duty specified in the Second Schedule to the CETA. This Notification was amended on 1-3-2000 and, consequently, Mod-vat credit of Special Excise Duty could be taken only on certain specified goods w.e.f. the said date. Goods falling under Chapter 21 were not so specified. As the appellants continued to take Modvat credit of Special Excise Duty on their inputs falling under Chapter 21 in March, 2000, the department by show cause notice proposed to disallow the credit. The proposal was contested. The original authority upheld the department's stand and disallowed to the party Modvat credit of Rs. 3,60,967/- taken in respect of their input "Concentrate" on the basis of two invoices, one dated 28-2-2000 and the other dated 12-...
Indian Coffee and Tea Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC624
1. The appeal at the instance of the assessee arises out of the proceeding relating to its claim for refund of the duty paid under protest.2. The appellants purchase, duty paid plastic films and thereafter metallise and/or lacquer the duty paid plastic films. Prior to introduction of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985, the metallised/Lacquered plastic films made by the appellants were completely exempt from excise duty vide Notification No. 231/92 dated 27.10.92. The above notification was withdrawn w.e.f. 1.3.96. The metallised/lacquered plastic film was classifiable under Heading 39.20 under CETA, 1985. Since there was some lack of clarity regarding durability of the goods, clearance of the same was stopped from 1.3.86.3. The appellant filed classification list under Rule 173B on 1.4.86 claiming that no duty is payable on its goods for the reason that the process did not amount to manufacture and that the input and output were classifiable under same heading and no duty hence w...
Lufthansa German Airlines Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)90ITD310(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 6th Dec., 1999, pertaining to asst. yr. 1996-97.2. At the outset, we may mention that an application was moved by the assessee for consideration of the constitution of the Special Bench as substantive question of law arises in the instant case. The comments of the Department were also asked for. Department has objected to the proposal of the appellant, However, during the course of hearing of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has withdrawn the proposal of constitution of Special Bench. We, therefore, reject the request of the assessee in this regard being withdrawn.3. Though various grounds have been raised, all the grounds arise against sustaining the addition of Rs. 38.61 lacs by the CIT(A) by holding that extending technical facilities under the International Airlines Technical Pool (IATP) arrangement to another IATP member airlines was neither part of business operation of aircraft in i...
Dr. Dilip Kumar Parida Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT277; 2004(73)DRJ313; 2004(3)SLJ49(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The two writ petitioners claim that ignoring the recommendations of the experts who had rated the petitioners as the most suitable candidates for selection, the respondent has effected empanelment of the private respondents in the two writ petitioners, by awarding them grading above the petitioners and as a consequence pray that selection of the private respondents be quashed and directions be issued to redetermine the merit list in accordance with the grades awarded by the experts. 2. CW No. 4107/2003 pertains to the faculty post of Assistant Professor in the department of Radio Therapy. Selection of respondents 4 and 5 is questioned.3. CW No. 3834/2003 pertains to the selection to the faculty post of Assistant Professor in the discipline ENT. Selection effected in favor of respondents 2 and 3 is questioned. 4. On 26.3.2002, All India Institute of Medical Sciences invited applications to fill up 164 posts of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. As per t...
Vinod Kumar S/O Late Sh. Raghubir Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT65; 2004(73)DRJ259; [2004(101)FLR610]; (2004)IILLJ697Del; 2004(3)SLJ305(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged an Award dated 5th November 1999 passed by the Labour Court in ID No.698 of 1986. By the impugned Award, the learned Labour Court answered the following terms of reference against the Petitioner: --'Whether the termination of services of Sh. Vinod Kumar is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'2. The Petitioner was working as a Turner with the Respondent-management at their HDPE pipe manufacturing unit at D-174, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi. This unit was closed down in 1985 and all the employees were retrenched with effect from 6th December 1986. In fact, the Respondent-management entered into a private settlement with 12 employees. With respect to the balance 21 employees, conciliation proceedings were entered into in the presence of the Conciliation Officer. During the conciliation proceedings, a settlement was arrived at with all the 21 employees under the...
Yadu India Limited Vs. Maya Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi359; 110(2004)DLT171; 2004(73)DRJ329
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Respondent had filed a suit for possession against Maiden Circuit Ltd., being Suit No.298/1995. In the course of those proceedings an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by the Plaintiff. While that application was being adjudicated upon, Nova India Ltd. filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment in the said suit. It was alleged that payments were made by Demand Drafts but because of the intrinsic nature of this mode of tender, it cannot be implied that the landlady was aware, or should be held to be aware, that the rent was being paid by Nova India Limited. It is also well established that payment of rent, per se, does not evidence the existence of a tenant/landlord relationship. There is no legal embargo in a person paying rent on behalf of the tenant. 2. However, in the very first paragraph it had been pleaded that 'the applicant is the assignee of Maiden Circuit Ltd. and has come ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »