Delhi Court April 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.
Be-office Automation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC179
1. The issue that has been referred for consideration by the Larger Bench is as follow : "Whether sub-assemblies and assemblies of photocopies would come under Item No. 9009909010 in Chapter 90 of the Import Export Policy, 1999 (reconditioned components of photocopiers)." 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that although the department had been treating the main frame of photocopier imported by the appellants as parts and components. According to him, there is no difference between components or parts or sub-assembly. The Import-Export Policy for the relevant period ITC-HS Classification, shows that import of re-conditioned components of photocopiers does not require any special licence. Therefore, according to the appellants, there is no merit in the case put forward by the Revenue.4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, would contend that definition of the term 'component' under Clause 7(10) Chapter III of the Import Policy for the relevant period would show that parts and components ...
Shreyans Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC375
1. These two appeals have been directed against the impugned Orders-in-Original dated 28.2.03 vide which the adjudicating authority had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 55,06,263 with equal amount of penalty, on the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA.They supplied these goods to the Delhi Bureau of Text Books in (short DBT) in pursuant of the order dated 18.10.2000 placed with them by the Secretary of the said DBT and cleared the goods without payment of duty by availing the exemption under Chapter Heading 4802.10 of the CETA.3. The benefit of the exemption from duty under the above-said Chapter Heading had been denied to them on two grounds (i) that the DBT is neither a State Text Books Publication Corporation nor a Board owned by the State; (ii) that the order for the purchase of the goods was not placed with the appellants by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of ...
Shri Prem Chand Chhillar Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT456; 2004(74)DRJ495; 2004(3)SLJ502(Delhi)
ORDERSd/- M.C. MEHTASECRETARY.'8. Petitioner challenges the said order.9. Shri G.D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of this court to Regulation 14 (6) of the Delhi Agricultural Market Committee (Service) Regulations, 1978 contended that disqualification for being appointed under the respondent was conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Rajasthan high Court reported as 2000 (7) SLR 131 Dr. Naresh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., counsel contended that conviction under Section 323/147 IPC would not amount to conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude. Such a conviction does not debar a person from holding civil post.10. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as : (1996)IILLJ703SC Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr. counsel contended that moral turpitude, is used in law as also common parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, deprav...
Mrs. P.L. Agarwal (Since Deceased Through Lrs) Vs. Lt. Governor and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT374; 2004(74)DRJ349
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petition is being pursued by the children of the petitioner, who died during the pendency of the proceedings in this court. Petitioner prays :(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order passed on February 22, 1983 by the 5th respondent school;(b) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus for quashing the order passed by the 5th respondent on February 22, 1983 and direct the 5th respondent school to reinstate the petitioner.(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and to declare that the petitioner is duly qualified to hold the post of a teacher for purposes of teaching a modern Indian language in the 5th respondent school;2. With effect from 1.9.1970, petitioner was employed as a teacher by respondent no.5 school. Being a post graduate in Hindi, petitioner alleges that she was teaching Hindi up to Class XI. As per the petition, respondent no.5 school was affiliated with the Central Board o...
Dr. Sunita Gupta Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Hrd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT301; 2004(74)DRJ475; [2004(101)FLR1195]; 2005(1)SLJ162(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 17.2.2004 alleging that the same is arbitrary, mala fide and a result of colourable exercise of power.2. Petitioner states that in the year 1982, she was married to Mr. Lalit Kumar Gupta, a practicing Advocate. On 26.12.1995 she got appointed as a Research Assistant under respondent No.2 and was posted at Jammu. Petitioner states that her husband developed serious neurological problem in the year 1995. She made a representation for being transferred to Delhi since her husband was undergoing medical treatment at AIIMS. Her request was duly considered. She was transferred to Delhi on deputation. Petitioner states that office order dated 29.8.1997 transferring her to Delhi would reveal that the post itself is transferred to Delhi. As per the petitioner, on 4.1.2001, she was transferred to the Examination Section with immediate effect. Petitioner states that office nothings exist on the file that the petitioner, in view of her e...
Mr. N.B. Chauhan Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ339; (2004)IIILLJ921Del
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner prays that the memorandum dated 14.2.1989 under cover of which a charge sheet stands issued to the petitioner be quashed and the respondents be prohibited from continuing with the departmental proceedings/enquiry against him.2. Three charges have been alleged against the petitioner as per the charge sheet. The same are as under:-STATEMENT OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SH. N.B. CHAUHAN, U.D.C., SLUM WING,DDA.CHARGE NO.1 SHRI N. B. Chauhan, U.D.C while working in the then Central Zone(S&JJ;) had remained absent from duty, unauthorisedly, from 14.3.1985 to 31.1.21986, without prior sanction of leave and without submitting proper leave applications, in time, with medical certificates, in all cases, where required.CHARGE NO.2. Shri N.B.Chauhan further remained absent from 1.1.1987 to 4.2.1988, unauthorisedly and without any leave application or intimation having been received from him.CHARGE NO.3. While Shri N.B. Chauhan had remained absent unauthorisedly sinc...
Meena Roy and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT277; [2004(101)FLR1028]; 2004(3)SLJ351(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners are currently holding the post of Private Secretary. They had joined service under DDA as Stenographers. Prior to amalgamation of the posts of Personal Assistants with Private Secretaries, post of Personal Assistant was a promotional post from the feeder cadre of Senior Stenographers. Post of Senior Stenographer was in the pay scales of Rs. 1200-2040 and Rs. 1400-2600. The post of a Personal Assistant was in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. Post of Private Secretary was in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. Personal Assistants were promoted as Private Secretaries. The post of Senior Stenographer is a Class III post and the post of Personal Assistant is a Class II post.2. In the year 1990, Government of India vide OM No. 2/1/90/C dated 31,7.1990 revised the pay scales of Stenographers who were earlier in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 425-700 to Rs. 1640-2900. This revision was made retrospectively applicable with effect from 1.1.1986. This was due to t...
Quantum Hi-tech Merchandising Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT197TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Quantum Hi-tech Merchandising is whether CPU cooling fans imported by them are classifiable under sub-heading 8473.30 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by them or under sub-heading 8414.59 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the CPU cooling fan imported by them is a device which is meant to cool the temperature of the CPU which constantly emits heat and is required to be constantly cooled; that it is an identifiable part of automatic processing machine; that the Computer cannot run without this cooling unit which comprises of a fan, a heat sink, metal clip to attach it to CPU which is an integral part of a computer and a connector; that HSN Explanatory Notes below Heading 84.14 relating to 'fans' clearly mentions that "this Heading excludes fans fitted with elements additional to their motors or housing them (suc...
Govind Glass and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC638
2. The common issue is involved in both the appeals in respect of jurisdiction, therefore, are being taken up together.3. The contention of the appellants is that in both the cases Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated in the show cause notice and the Commissioner of Central Excise authorized Assistant Commissioner (Audit) to file appeals against the adjudication order.The contention of the appellants is that in fact the appeal was filed by Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Mehsana. Their contention is that this issue was specifically raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing Cross-objection but the Commissioner (Appeals) had not given any finding on the issue of jurisdiction. The contention of the appellants is that as Commissioner specifically directed the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) to file the appeal, the appeals filed by the other Assistant Commissioners are not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 35E(2) of the Act.4. On the last date...
M.L. Vij vs. M.T.N.L.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi408; 2004(2)ARBLR51(Delhi); 111(2004)DLT595; 2004(74)DRJ452
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the Award dated 16.8.2003 given by the Arbitrator. Petitioner had certain disputes regarding excess billing in respect of his telephone. Telephone was disconnected on account of non-payment of bills. The same was subsequently restored during the arbitration proceedings upon certain payments as directed by the Arbitrator being made by the petitioner.2. The crux of the controversy before the Arbitrator was the petitioner's claim of inflated bills. In particular : bill dated 9.1.2001 for Rs.15,010/-; bill dated 9.2.2001 for Rs.30,214/- and bill dated 9.3.2001 for Rs.28,874/- The case of the petitioner is that for the period November 2000 to February 2001, a sum of Rs.69,056/- was charged for calls not made. These excessive calls could not have been made from his telephone and are a result of his telephone line being tampered by outsiders in collusion with MTNL staff.3. It is not disputed before me that the Arbitrator gave suff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »