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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Foam Udyog Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT57TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether P.U. Foam mattresses manufactured by M/s. Bharat Foam Udyog Ltd., are classifiable under Heading 39.21 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the respondents or under Heading 94.04 as claimed by the Revenue.2. Mrs. Charu Baranwal, learned SDR submitted that the respondents had been classifying the impugned goods under Heading 94.04 since 1992 and were discharging duty liability and later they had changed the classification with effect from 2000 and started classifying the products under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff; that the goods are more appropriately understood as P.U. Foam mattresses and simple mattresses in the common parlance and commercial understanding; that Heading 94.04 specifically covers within its ambit, the mat tresses whereas Heading 39.21 applies to "other plates, sheets, foam, foil and strip of plastics; that thus Heading 94.04 provides specific description of the impug...
C.C.E. Vs. Bhaskar Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC207
2. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is whether the chargers for additional testing conducted at the request of customer and the cost of such testing charges being born by the customer, are includible in the assessable value of the goods. The Referring Bench noticed the conflicting view taken by the Tribunal in the case Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda, reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Mumbai) and in the case of Bhaskar Industrial Development Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Kolkata-III-Final Order No.A-393-394/Kol/2003 dated 10.6.2003.3. We have perused the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda (Supra). In that case the Tribunal had taken into consideration the facts that the inspection charges were not in respect of the optional or secondary testing, hence are includible in the assessable value of the goods. While deciding so, it was ...
Aradhana Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC564
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Aradhana Industies Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether refund of Central Excise duty is admissible to them.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are engaged in the process of man-made fabrics; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under order dated 24.12.98, decided the annual capacity on provisional basis pending verification of the stenter machines and correctness of their declaration; that after the verification, the Deputy Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No.2660/2000 dated 14.11.2000, determined their total capacity of production including length of galleries; that, subsequently, in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Bhilwara Processors Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (82) ECC 196 (LB): 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-LB) the galleries are not forming part and parcel of the Hot Air Stenter, they filed the ref...
V.S. Saini and anr. Vs. D.C.M. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi219; 110(2004)DLT641; 2004(74)DRJ65
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioners in these Revisions were Defendants in sundry summary suits who had unsuccessfully applied for leave to defend those suits. The Respondents have raised the preliminary objection questioning their very maintainability of the Revisions. It is not as if one is on virgin territory, since this question has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Siri Krishan Bhardwaj v. Manohar Lal Gupta and another, : AIR1977Delhi226 . It had been noted in that Judgment that two Learned Judges had returned divergent opinions on this subject. B.C. Misra, J. had opined that a Revision is maintainable whereas D.K. Kapur, J. took the diametrically opposite view that only an appeal against the decree can be entertained. The Division Bench clarified that a Revision entailed only the bringing of an `error` to the notice of the High Court and conferred no further right of hearing on the aggrieved party. It went on to discuss that an order refusing to grant Leave t...
Shri Adil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1986; 110(2004)DLT583; 2004(74)DRJ85
R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks the quashing of his detention order dated 13.2.2002 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( in short the 'Act') and his release from the custody.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the germane facts and circumstances which led to the passing of the impugned detention order dated 13.2.2002 are that, acting on an information, a joint research operation was conducted by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate and the Officers of Local Police on 24.2.2001 at the Corner Gali Kaptan Wali, Kucha Chelan, Daryaganj, Delhi, under warrant of authorisation of the even date issued under Section 37(3) of FEMA 1999 read with Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Two persons namely Shri Imran and Shri Abid who were riding two wheeler scooter No. DL-2S-H 9071 were stopped and A...
Pawan Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2310; 110(2004)DLT611; 2004(75)DRJ84
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.2.1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi in Crl.A.14/1998 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal while upholding the order of conviction, which appeal arose out of the order dated 7.10.1998 of the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate has held the appellant/petitioners herein guilty under Section 448/34 IPC and sentenced them to a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 30 days each.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused who are first offenders and have already deposited the fine can be considered and admitted to the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the incident took place as far back as on 1993. The petitioners have been facing the ordeal of trial for over 11 years and there ha...
Lalit Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2320; 110(2004)DLT639; 2004(75)DRJ47
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 091.03.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Judge has upheld the sentence qua the appellant/petitioner herein and disposed of the appeal which appeal arose out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the Magistrate has sentenced the appellant/petitioner herein to undergo R.I. of one year with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be considered and admitted to the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the petitioner who is less then 21 years of age should be given the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the incident took place as far back as in 1998 and the petitioner has been facing the ordeal of trial ...
Poonam JaIn Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)316
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.:The cross-appeals in the case of Mrs. Poonarn Jain arise out of the Commissioner (Appeals), order dated 8-5-2000, the cross-appeals in the case of Smt. Trishla Jain arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 14-7-2000, the cross-appeals in the case of MC Jain arise out of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 22-5-2000 and the appeal directed by the revenue in the case of Shri Sanjay Jain arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-3-2000. As the common issues are involved in all the appeals, these are being disposed of by a consolidated order.For the sake of convenience, we will first take up the appeals in the case of Smt. Poonam Jain.assessed's appeal: (IT(SS)A No. 78/Del/2000)1. The appeal directed by the assessed is not pressed, hence the same is dismissed.Revenue's appeal: (IT(SS)A No. 91/Del/2000).-1. The appeal directed by the revenue is against deleting the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the purc...
Ms. Sushma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT1; 2004(74)DRJ512
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, a young lady of 22 years, was enamoured with the prospects of going abroad for a language course on scholarship. She responded to an advertisement taken out by Ministry of Human Resources & Development in the 'Times of India', offering 'the Italian Government Scholarship' for the year 2002-03.2. She applied for a two months' category 'D' course in Italian language at the University of Foreigners, Perugia, Italy. Petitioner was selected for the same. She was paid Euro 619.75 per month which was inclusive of cost of stay in Italy and the course fee. The air passage was also to be borne by the petitioner. 3. Under the scheme of the Scholarship, petitioner executed a bond, which appears at Annexure-D to the paper book. It is not in dispute that petitioner undertook the course and successfully completed the same. 4. The cause for filing the writ petition is the Order dated 17th/22nd September, 2003, passed by Under Secretary to the Government of India, requi...
Rakesh Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT37
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.7.1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Judge while upholding the sentence has dismissed the appeal, which appeal arose out of the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate held the accused guilty under Sections 279/304-A, IPC and vide separate order sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 279 and imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months under Section 304-A, IPC. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to go together.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be considered and admitted to the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »