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.
Samtel Colour Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC346
1 The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 22.5.2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 10,866 with penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the company appellant No. 1 and also penalty of Rs. 10,000 on its Deputy Manager, appellant No. 2.2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no evidence on the record to prove that the appellants supplied new colour picture tubes (in short CPTs) to M/s. Dixon Utilities Exports Ltd. instead of replacing the defective ones and that the duty liability has been wrongly affirmed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He has also referred to the earlier order vide which proceedings were dropped against the appellants which was initiated on these very grounds, by the Tribunal by setting aside the adjudication order against them on 28.10.2003. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reit...
Sti India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC274
1. M/s STI India Ltd. have filed the present appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 377/2003 dated 14.7,2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the rejection of their refund on account of time bar.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture cotton yarn, cotton fabric, and cotton polyster yarn; that they availed Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that by virtue of availing the benefit under EPCG Scheme they were exporting their goods to fulfil the export obligation and there was hardly any sale of the goods indigenously; that, therefore, they could not utilize Modvat Credit towards payment of Central Excise duty. They filed a refund claim for refund of the credit lying in their RG-23A, Part-II; that the Asst. Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 313/99 dated 30.12.99 rejected their refund claim as time barred as the refund claim was filed on 27.7.99 in respect of the goods exported during October 1998; that the Commissioner ...
National Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC135
1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made by the appellants, to the Order-in-Original dated 28.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar confirming the demand of Rs. 5,66,70,748/- with equal amount of penalty for the period March 1996 to March 2000 by denying the Modvat credit to them on Caustic Soda Lye (in short CSL) used by them as one of the input in the manufacture of the final product namely, Calcined Alumina on the allegation that the unaccounted loss indicated in the Management Information System (MIS) was nothing but short receipt of CLS in the factory which had never been used/consumed in the process of manufacture of the final product. This impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner in pursuance to the show cause notice served on the appellants for denying them the Modvat credit of the amount in question wherein the imposition of penalty was also proposed and extended period was invoked for having suppressed the true facts and made mis-st...
Hcl Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(115)LC478Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are manufacturers of computers. They pay central excise duty on the value of the computers at the rate applicable under tariff heading 4871.00. They supply software also along with computers.The software is either loaded or is supplied separately. So is the manual of the software. Under the order impugned in the present appeal, Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry has held that the appellant should discharge duty on the computers after including the value of the software also in the assessable value. Para 39(i) of the Order states as under: 39(i) That the value/cost of the Operational Software installed by the assessee on the computers before clearance from the factory is includible in the assessable value/transaction value of the computer system and therefore, the differential duty demanded in the two Show Cause Notices need to be confirmed.From the foregoing, it is clear that duty demands have been made on the basis that computer system (not computer alone) ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. New Sandhu Metal Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC472
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 2-6-98 is available to the brass sheets manufacture by M/s. New Sandhu Metal Works.2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that Serial No. 198 of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. is available to "All goods other than trimmed or untrimmed sheets or circles of copper, intended for use in the manufacture of utensils or handicrafts." falling under Heading No. 74.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that this Serial No. provides exemption only for goods intended for use in the manufacture of handicrafts or utensils other than trimmed or untrimmed sheets or circles of copper; that Serial No. 199 prescribes rate of duty for trimmed or untrimmed sheets or circles of copper, intended for use in the manufacture of utensils or handicrafts"; that a plain reading of Serial No. 199 reveals that it covers "all the goods other than trimmed ...
V.K. Issar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT150; 2004(74)DRJ557; [2004(102)FLR662]; 2005(1)SLJ339(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined the Indian Army as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in 1968. In 1973 he was released from the Army and joined Central Industrial Security Force in the rank of Inspector. He was promoted in 1985 as Assistant Commandant with CISF. On the basis of his service profile, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant in the year 1992. In 1996-1997, adverse remarks were recorded in his ACR for the period from 16.7.1996 to 31.3.1997. Petitioner submitted his representation against the adverse remarks. Petitioner completed 50 years of age on 4.12.1997. However, on 29.4.1998, impugned order of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 1.5.1998 was passed without assigning any reason and without granting him any opportunity to under FR 56 (j) of the Rules.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the only ad...
Satish Saini and ors. Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT417; 2004(74)DRJ366; 2005(1)SLJ83(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1.Writ petitions in the 6 captioned petitions epitome a similar story and thereforee must have a common epitaph. All writ petitioners hold Class IV posts under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In February 1999, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) proposed to levy Toll Tax on all commercial vehicles entering the Municipal Limits of M.C.D. The proposal was implemented.2. Persons were needed to collect the Toll Tax. Pending creation of permanent posts and thereafter filling the same on permanent basis, MCD resolved to divert some of its existing employees to carry out and perform various duties connected with levy and recovery of Toll Tax. From different departments of MCD persons were posted in the Toll Tax Department in 'diverted capacity'.3. Petitioners who were working as Class IV employees in different departments of MCD were transferred and posted in the Toll Tax Department in diverted capacity and were designated as Toll Tax Collectors. In the orders, p...
State Bank of Indore Vs. Shri N.C. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR60(Delhi); [2005]128CompCas931(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT186; 2004(74)DRJ470
Manmohan Sarin, J.1.The petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 3.3.2003, Annexure P-12, by which respondent No.1 Shri N.C.Jain, the Arbitrator under the Permanent Machinery for Arbitration, declined the petitioner's prayer against impleadment in the absence of an arbitration agreement with either the claimant or the respondent. The petitioner further seeks writ of prohibition to restrain respondent No.1 from adjudicating upon the liability of the petitioner, without an express or implied arbitration agreement.2.The facts to the extent relevant for decision of writ petition may be noted briefly. Respondent No.2, State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Satna, (M.P.) moved for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Permanent Machinery for Arbitration for settlement of its claim against respondent No.3, Sharda Gramin Bank, Regional Rural Bank. State Bank of Indore, respondent No.2/Claimant, State Bank of India, through the Branch Manager, Satna (M.P.) an...
Mohd. Afzal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3461; 111(2004)DLT467; 2004(74)DRJ454
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Mohd. Afzal prays for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the propriety and validity of the order of detention dated 20 June 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the detaining authority') under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the NSA') on being satisfied that the petitioner's detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The order of detention along with the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on 20 June 2003. Against the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the NSA. The case of the petitioner, along with his representation was placed before the Advisory Board, who opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. ...
GAiL Officers' Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT255; 2004(3)SLJ335(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner, an association of the officers working in Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) has filed the present petition praying:'(i) Direct the respondent No. 1 to initiate action/seek Explanationn against respondent No. 2 and direct him to implement the agreement/memorandum of understanding dated 10.1.2003 signed with the petitioner's association in letter and spirit.(ii) Quash the decision dated 20.6.2003 of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2, giving effect to the fast track promotion to the selectfew executives of the respondent No. 2, in absolute disregard of the Agreement/MOU dated 10.1.2003.(iii) Direct the respondent No. 2, to refrain from transferring the office bearers of the petitioner association on flimsy grounds in absence of any transfer policy, quash all such transfers and direct them to draft a Transfer Policy in consultation with the petitioners association.(iv) Pass order or further order, as this Hon'ble Court; may deem fit and proper ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »