Delhi Court May 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not 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. Pashupati Acrylon Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT532TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held as under : "The crux of the matter is whether the expression 'Acrylic Fibre' also includes Acrylic Tow and Tops in its ambit. It is observed that the Board vide its Circular No. 8/16/6/88-TRU, dated 31-5-1988 has clarified that the expression used in the Notification No. 80/88, dated 1-3-1988 namely, "Acrylic Fibre" covers not only acrylic staple fibre, but also tow and tops of the same material. The term 'Fibre' is generic in nature and covers low, staple fibre and tops. It is certainly not relevant that the above clarification is in respect of Notification No. 80/88 and not in respect of Notification No. 225/86. Because the term "acrylic fibre" has been defined as to cover tow, staple fibre and tops. Further, Board's Circular No. 29/98-Cus., dated 23-4-1998 is also relevant which reads as "As per Notification No. 81/97-Cus., dated 24-10...
Cce Vs. Ludhiana Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC288
1. The issue raised by the revenue in this appeal is whether 'Dharmada' charges shown in the invoices and recovered from the customers is required to be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7900-92 dt. 28.11.2002 in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. Panchmukhi Engg. Works and Ors. has held that 'Dharmada' charged in the invoices and recovered from the customers is required to be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared.3. In the light of above, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal....
R.K. Srivastava Vs. Commissioner of Customs (icd)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT297TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-original vide which the Commissioner of Customs has imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of the Act.2. The learned Counsel has at the outset assailed the correctness of the impugned order on the sole ground that it had been passed in violation of Rules of natural justice as no show cause notice was served on the appellant and no notice affording personal hearing to him was also given by the Commissioner of Customs. The Counsel has heavily relied upon the letter dated 2-8-2001 sent by him to the Commissioner of Customs.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has contended that the show cause notice was sent to the appellant by speed post, on his two known addresses but were received back with the remarks that no person of this name stays at the given addresses and a copy of the show cause notice was also pasted at the Customs House office in terms of Section 153 of the Act. He has also argued...
KamfIn Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC35
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Kamfin Paints (India) Ltd., is whether they were clearing the excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person making them ineligible for the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification.2. Shri K.L. Handa, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants manufacture paints, varnishes, primers and thinners; that the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification has been disallowed to them on the ground that they were clearing thinners manufactured by them bearing the brand name and logo owned by M/s. Kamfin Industries. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that in respect of their other manufactured goods, the benefit of SSI exemption Notification has been granted in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Fine Industries, 2002 (146) ELT 53 (T-LB) whereas in respect of thinners, the benefit of exemption has been denied on the ground that the same is being manufactured by both the factories; that this find...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. E. Stantone
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)176
1. The Department is in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-V New Delhi in appeal No. 429/94-95 dt. 11th Sept., 1995. The grounds of appeal are as given below : "The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was employed in a business carried on in India specially when he was an employee of M/s Cray Research UK Ltd. and was drawing his salary in sterling pound in UK. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts allowing exemption under Section 10(6)(viia) on the basis of a letter from Ministry of Science & Technology which was subject to fulfilment of all other terms and conditions of Section 10(6)(viia) which have not been fulfilled." 2. The assessee Mr. E. Stantone is a technician who was employed with M/s Cray Research India Ltd. during the period relevant to asst. yr.1992-93. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the exemption obtained under Section 10(6)(viia) from the Central Government for a period exceeding 24 months. The asse...
S.K. Tanwar Vs. National Open School Society (Regd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT774; 2005(3)SLJ49(Delhi)
ORDER Consequent upon grant of Higher Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide M/o Finance and Company Affairs O.M.6/82/E.III(B)/91 dated 28.02.2003 and CGA O.M.No. A-60015/1198/MF-CGA(A)/NGE/FTC/240 dated 04.03.2003 and CGA clarification U.O No.6/82/E.III(B)/91 dated 31.07.2003, the Pay of Shri S.K.Tanwar, AAO, who has permanently observed in National Open School on 28.03.2003, has been fixed notionally in the higher scale of Pay Rs. 7450-225-11500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 6500-200-10500 7450-225-11500 Shri S.K. Tanwar, AAO Rs. 6500 Pay fixed Rs. 7450 D.N.I. 01.04.1996 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with DN.I 01.04.1996 (Notionally) Monetary benefits w.e.f. 19.02.2003. This issues with the approval of CA (H). Sd/- 12. On 21.2.2004, respondent issued office order No. 29/4 reverting the petitioner to the post of Accounts Officer. No reasons were indicated. Petitioner was not heard before the order of reversion was passed. Petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2501/2004. Respondent withdrew the offic...
S.S. Bindra Vs. Tarvinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi442; 112(2004)DLT813; II(2004)DMC297; (2004)138PLR33
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In divorce proceedings initiated by the Revisionist (Husband), the Respondent Wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of maintenance for herself and for her two minor children. By the impugned Order dated 31.1.2003, the Addl. District Judge has come to the conclusion that the Husband's statement of his salary being Rs. 29,000/- per month does not inspire confidence. The Addl. District Judge has kept in mind the Husbands own statement that he was spending a sum of Rs. 45,000/- per month on himself. It is the finding of the Trial Court that the Husband was drawing a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- per month as salary. In order to enable the Wife and Children to live in the same status in which the Husband was living, the Trial Court has ordered the Husband to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- per month to the Respondent together with Rs. 1 Lakh towards litigation expenses. The Order has been assailed in the present Revision Petition. 2. A...
Smt. Bhawna Dhyani Vs. National Open School Society (Regd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT174; 2004(75)DRJ500
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner joined service under the Association of Indian Universities on 21.6.1984 in the scale of Rs.425-800 which scale was revised to Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 2. National Open School Society (NOS) was established as an autonomous organization in November, 1989, being a society registered under Societies Registration Act,1860. Society has established the National Institute of Open Schooling (NOIS). It was adopting recruitment rules framed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) till September, 2002. With effect from September, 2002, NOS framed 'General Rules of Recruitment and Promotion of Academic and Non-Academic Staff of NIOS 2002'. 3. On 11.7.1990, petitioner joined respondent by way of direct and permanent recruitment as Personal Assistant (P.A.) to the Chairman of NIOS in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200. Vide order dated 12.4.1993 the post of P.A. was re-designated as Personal Secretary (P.S.). Scale continued to be the same. While re-design...
Parminder Singh and anr. Vs. Virender Pal Singh Jolly
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT45
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision discloses the manner in which the justice delivery system can be crippled by the adoption of dilatory devices which can succeed only because the system is bursting at the seams owing to the perennial shortage of judicial officers. A change in the mindset is essential and unavoidable and the affliction of showing leniency towards the party adopting delaying tactics calls for a paradigm shift so that this malaise can be put to a swift and clinical death.2. In the present case the revisionist/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits almost fifteen years ago. The Written Statement was filed by the defendant/respondent in on 18.7.1988. This would have entailed the appointment of a pleader under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure which enjoins the Advocate to appear in the case till his Vakalatnama is permitted to be withdrawn by specific orders of the Court. The frequent occurrence of Advocates choosing not to appear in...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mittal Construction
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR359(Delhi); 2004(75)DRJ425
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. A work order was issued by the Delhi Development Authority in favor of the respondent by order dated 4th December, 1980. In the said contract, the time allotted for carrying out and completion of the work was 15 months which was to be reckoned from the 10th day of the issuance of the award letter. The work order was issued on 4th December, 1980 and as such the starting time for the work was to be reckoned from 14th December, 1980 and the work was stipulated to be completed by 13th March, 1982. The respondent started the work at the site earmarked for the project but the respondent was asked to shift to another site. It is pointed out from the records filed by the DDA that intimation was sent intimating about the change of sit, on 4th January, 1981. The aforesaid position is also supported and confirmed by letter dated 8th January, 1981 written by the respondent which is document No.R-30, in which it was indicated that the respondent had to incur an expenditure o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »