Delhi Court March 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.
Basant Projects Ltd. Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT505; 2004(73)DRJ627
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking restraint on the respondent/BSES from disconnecting the temporary electric connection, installed at premises bearing Plot No.6, M.L.U. Pocket, Sector 12, Dwarka, Delhi.3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition may be briefly noted:-4. Petitioner had purchased the plot in question in a DDA auction and after the sanction of plot, it raised construction. However, petitioner had only been sanctioned and provided a temporary electric connection, which apart from not catering to the needs of the consumers, is cost prohibitive. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/BSES as also DDA. Mr.Jayant Nath on behalf of respondent/BSES submits that DDA was to give BSES the 4th plot for setting up the sub-station, which had not been provided. Besides, he submits that DDA was sharing the cost of electrifi...
The State Vs. Mr. B.B. Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT607; I(2004)DMC812; 2004(74)DRJ114
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. This is a petition u/s 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in FIR No. 118/2003, u/s 498-A/ 304B / 406/ 34 IPC, P.S. Inderpuri, Delhi.2. Vide impugned order dated 27.8.2003, learned ASJ has granted bail to the respondents under the proviso (a) (ii) to section 167(2) Cr.P.C being of the view that for an offence u/s 304B IPC the Magistrate can authorise detention during investigation only for a period of sixty days.3. Admittedly, challan in this case was not filed within a period of sixty days from the date of arrest of the respondent. The only point canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the State is that in case of State of Maharashtra v. Ketan Seth reported in 2003 1 AD (Cr.) BOM. 412 and in case of State of H.P. Vs . Lal Singh view taken by the respective High Courts is that if for the alleged offence the accused can be convicted for more than ten years the period of detention would be 90 days as provided ...
Dr. S.K. Burman Charitable Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Del)117
1. The Director of IT (Exemption), New Delhi, vide order dt. 31st Oct., 2003, disposed of an application filed under Section 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The grievance made before the Court is that the application has not been decided by giving a finding either in the affirmative or in the negative. It is true that instead of recording any conclusive fining the order passed is--'since the reply of the applicant is not complete, it does not explain the infirmity pointed out above; the application is filed.'2. Thus, it is very clear that the application is not conclusively disposed of... In these circumstances, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with necessary material to satisfy the said authority and after considering the matter, the competent authority shall pass the order in accordance with law. With these directions this petition stands disposed of....
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Star India Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC553
1. The appellant-assessees who are held liable to pay service tax challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai dated 18.11.2002 rejecting their appeals against the orders of adjudication. Since both the appellants raised a common contention that their activities cannot be termed as 'taxable service' as defined under section 65(72), as it stood during the relevant period, the appeals are disposed off by a common order. According to them they are not providing any service to a client as a broadcasting agency or organization in relation to braodcasting in India. Therefore, the demand of service tax is not sustainable.2. M/s Zee Telefilms Ltd., appellant in ST/4/2003, are representatives of M/s. Asia Today Ltd. (ATL) and M/s. Expand Fast Holdings Ltd. (EXPAND), Mauritius, in India for selling time slot for advertisement and for obtaining sponsors for serials, programmes, events, etc. which would be played out by ATL/EXPAND in the various channels like...
Swaraj Techno Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT180TriDel
1. This application seeks to recall the Final Order dated 10-12-2003 and restore the appeal. I have perused the pleadings contained in this application and heard both the sides.2. By stay order dated 25-9-2003, this Bench had directed the appellants to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh within six weeks (from the date of the order) and report compliance on 10-12-2003. On 10-12-2003, no evidence of compliance with the said direction was brought on record, nor was there any submission from the appellants' Counsel (who was present) that the pre-deposit had been made. In the circumstances, the appeal got dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F. In the present application, it is stated that the pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh had been made as early as on 14-11-2003. The application is accompanied by a copy of the relevant TR-6 challan evidencing deposit of the amount. This document, however, shows that the payment was made 'under protest'. The Counsel submits that the endorsement 'under p...
Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC65
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of telephone exchange equipment.Telecom service providers like BSNL,MTNL and Reliance are the customers for such equipment.The equipments are supplied in terms of contract from the appellant's factory after payment of Central Excise duty as applicable.2. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Central Excise authorities that in addition to supply of domestically manufactured telecom equipment,the appellant has also undertaken import and supply of various items of software. These supplies were also made to the same telecom service providers. Therefore, show cause notices were issued alleging that the appellant was required to include the price of the imported software also in the value of the equipment supplied and pay duty on such combined values. The appellant resisted the demand stating that excise duty is attracted only on the goods manufactured in India and that the software imported and supplied separately cannot from part of the value of the...
Poddar Pigments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT80TriDel
1. The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the limitation provisions under Section 27 of the Customs Act are applicable to a claim for refund of interest paid under Section 61(2) of the Act.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are : The raw material imported by the appellants were in-bonded/warehoused on 18-3-99 and ex-bonded/cleared out of warehouse for home consumption on 10-3-2000.During the period, the interest-free period of warehousing under Section 61 of the Customs Act was one year. As the goods had not remained in warehouse beyond this period of one year, the appellants filed a claim for refund of the amount of interest which they had paid in terms of Section 61(2) at the instance of the department. This refund claim was filed on 28-7-2000 and the same was rejected as time-barred by both the original and first appellate authorities. Hence this appeal.3. The Counsel for the appellants submits that any interest required to be paid under Section...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT311TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner allowing the transfer of unutilised credit to the respondents from account RG 23 to their account in RG 23A.2. The learned SDR has contended that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to adjudicate on the request of the respondents for transfer of unutilised Modvat credit lying with them in their account RG 23 to their account RG 23A during the year 1986. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly affirmed the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner and as such impugned order passed by him deserves to be set aside. But in my view, this contention of the learned SDR cannot be accepted for two reasons; firstly, that the case was remanded by the Tribunal to the Assistant Commissioner for examining the request of the respondents regarding transfer of unutilised Modvat credilt from one accou...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Eastern Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT527TriDel
1. The issue raised in these appeals at the instance of the Revenue is identical. We had occasion to consider the same issue in our Final Order Nos. 142-149/04-NB(A), dt. 3-3-2004 where the Commissioner (Appeals) had issued identically worded orders.2. We took the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion that the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 191 (T. - LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 637 is no longer good law in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.). We observed that the Commissioner had come to a conclusion that the sale has taken place at the factory gate and therefore, ratio of the above decision regarding inclusion of freight and insurance charges would be directly applicable. Further we took the view that the observation made by the Commissioner regarding the verification has to be treated as superfluous and not as an order of remand. We, therefor...
Satyam Technocast and Prince Time Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC361
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Original dated 22.8.2003 vide which the adjudicating authority (Commissioner) has confirmed the duty against the firm appellant No. 1 with penalty and confiscated the goods of appellant No. 2 and also imposed penalty on them, as detailed therein.2. The appellant No. 1 is a proprietorship concern of Shri Somesh Satish Malik. This firm is engaged in the manufacture and trading of furniture and sanitary fittings since November 2001. Similary firm appellant No. 2 is engaged in the trading and manufacture of watch cases and parts thereof for the last 15 years. This firm is a partnership firm having 3 partners namely Somesh Satish Malik, Smt.Avani S. Malik, and Smt. Usha S. Malik. The duty against firm appellant No. 1 had been confirmed by dubbing its clearances for the period 1.4.2000 to 16.12.2002 with that of appellant No. 2 and another firm known Pioneer Hardware Industries which had 3 partners namely Somesh S...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »