Delhi Court May 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.
Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT112TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 27,687/- was disallowed and the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pistons, Piston pins, Piston rings. Appellants made an import of machines known as 'Master Cam Finish' vide Bill of Entry dated 13-8-1998 and also availed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the CVD duty paid on the capital goods. Thereafter, the same Master Camp Finish (Capital goods) were removed after due intimation to the Revenue and after reversing the credit for repair to the original manufacturer in Germany. After repair, the goods were cleared vide Bill of Entry, dated 30-1-1999 after payment of CVD duty of Rs. 4,544/-. On the charges for repair, the appellants availed the credit in respect of this duty. On return of the goods, the appellants also taken credit which was originally reversed at the time of removal of the cap...
Cce Vs. Johari Digital Health Care Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(115)LC559Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of two Order-in-Appeal, is whether M/s. Johri Digital Health Care Ltd. are eligible to avail the benefit of exemption notification No.21/2002-Cus.2. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned S.D.R., submitted that the respondents had imported batteries and power cords and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 (Sl. No. 363 of the Table); that the goods were classified under Heading 85.44 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and the benefit of exemption Notification was disallowed; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has, however, allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, on the ground that serial No. 363 of the Notification allows concessional rate of duty to medical equipment and accessories thereof; that batteries and power cords are accessories of the medical equipments. She, further, submitted that batteries and power cords cannot be called accessories; that, as per para 9.2 of the Exim Pol...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jyoti Structures Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC578
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur dated 6-2-2002. The issue that has come up for consideration is whether testing charges incurred in respect of prototype transmission towers are to be added to the assessable value of the goods cleared by the assessee. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'Parts of Towers' and 'Structures' falling under sub-heading Nos. 7308.20 and 7308.90 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. At the time of removal of the goods manufactured they were paying excise duty on the value of the goods. While so, a show cause notice dated 28-9-2001 was issued demanding an amount of Rs. 25,93,133/- on the allegation that the respondent by not including the testing charges recovered from their customers in the assessable value of the impugned goods had deliberately undervalued the goods. The assessee contended that the testing which is conducted...
Alfred Dunhill Limited Vs. R.P.S. Chawla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC39(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J 1. By this order I propose to dispose of the injunction application filed by the plaintiff which was registered as I.A. No. 416/2004. 2. The plaintiff is one of the most well known international brands in the world for its exquisite and diversified range of luxury and fashion goods. The plaintiff's business includes inter alias designing, creation, manufacture, marketing, distribution and worldwide sale of a wide and diversified range of fashion, luxury and utility goods including those for cars, automobile accessories, men's clothing, watches and wall clocks, writing instruments, small jewellery, leather goods including leather deskets, ladies' hand bags, wallets, leather bill folds, key fobs, stationery, and other products like fragrances, umbrellas, toiletries, travel accessories, liquor, baggage, etc. The extent of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff has been aptly state both in the plaint as also in the application filed by the plaintiff seeking for a tem...
Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Kailashpati Steel Industries Limi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC288; 2004(77)DRJ344
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit which is filed by the plaintiff is one under order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure being filed as a summary suit and praying for a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,20,47,516/- Along with pendente lite and future interest and costs of the suit. The statutory notices were issued upon which the defendants entered appearance in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter the plaintiff took out summons for judgment also in statutory form which were served on the defendants and on service thereof the defendants filed applications seeking for leave to defend the suit. In the said applications filed by the defendants seeking for leave to defend, an objection is raised that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as nowhere in the plaint it was disclosed as to how Mr. Vijay K...
Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre of Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Char ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(75)DRJ328; [2004(102)FLR671]; (2004)IIILLJ914Del; 2005(1)SLJ235(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner is a super specialty Hospital and a Medical Research Centre and respondent No.1 is said to be the recognized union of the petitioner hospital. 2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 10.10.2002, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Rule 61 read with Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') whereby the application of the Union for declaring five workmen, including respondent no.3, as `protected workmen' was allowed and they were declared as `protected workmen' w.e.f the date of the application, namely, 06th March, 2002.3. The petitioner's case is as under:- (a) That while the application for declaring respondent no.3 as a `protected workman' was filed on 06th March, 2002 he was declared as `protected workman' by the Assistant Labour Commissioner only on 10th October, 2002. On 4th June, 2001 the petitioner had already issued a charge sheet to the workman for his having outraged the mod...
Tanvi Trading and Credit Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Co ... Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT1
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.The case of the petitioner is that on 28.10.1994, the petitioner purchased a plot of land bearing No. 47, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi measuring 5000 sq. yards through a registered sale deed executed by this Court in execution of a decree passed by this Court in Suit No. 307/93. The said plot was mutated in the name of the petitioner on 22nd March, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent/NDMC with the request to sanction the building plans. NDMC refused to receive the building plans. Thereafter, a direction was issued by Lt. Governor on 22.2.1998, directing the NDMC to receive building plans in respect of the said plot and process the same in accordance with law. In spite of that NDMC refused to accept the building plans and it was again in April, 1998, Lt. Governor directed the NDMC to receive the building plans and process the same in accordance with law. Since April, 1998, the building plans has not been sanctioned by the respondent....
Kansi Ram and ors. Vs. Inder Singh Solanki and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3641; 111(2004)DLT810; 2004(75)DRJ445
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl. Rev. No. 28/2002 whereby the learned Judge has reversed the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Case No. 132/2001 under Section 145, Cr.P.C.2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Sessions Judge completely overlooked the fact that possession of the land by the petitioner had been established by evidence on record which was relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and has been wrongly interpreted by the Additional Sessions Judge. He fortifies his argument by showing that an application had been moved in The High Court being Crl. M. A. 3564/2003 wherein the respondents have clearly stated that they have come into physical possession of the disputed land at the instance of the Station House Officer who put them into possession on 11th November, 2002. This application is supported by an affidavit which clear...
Alberto Culver Company Vs. R.K. Vijay and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT606; 2005(79)DRJ360; 2005(30)PTC74(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the plaint a representation is made by the plaintiff that defendants No. 1 to 3 are engaged in the business of similar/allied cognate goods as that of plaintiff, namely, the sale & trade of various types of cosmetics and personal care products. It is also stated in paragraph 19 that defendant No. 3 is marketing and selling the impugned goods through defendants No. 1 and 2 in Delhi besides other parts of India, who are its dealers, distributors and stockists. In the light of the aforesaid statement, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been arrayed as defendants in the present suit.2. On service of summons, defendants No. 1 and 2 have entered appearance and they have case categorically stated in their written statement filed that the said two defendants, namely, defendants No. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the defendant No. 3. It is also stated that none of the aforesaid defendants have neither purchased the products of the plaintiff nor o...
Indian Tube Mills and Metal Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC140
1. The above captioned two appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Original vide which the Adjudicating Authority has confimed duty demand of Rs. 66,925/- with equal amount of penalty and interest, against the company -- Appellant No. 1, and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1/- lakh on Appellant No. 2 -- the Vice President of the Company. The duty demand alongwith penalty has been confirmed against the company for having manufactured and cleared one mild steel/Carbon steel storage tank without payment of duty. On appellant No. 2 penalty has been imposed under Rule 209-A being the Vice President of the Company who facilitated the company in the evasion of the duty on that storage tank.2. The learned Counsel has contended that show cause notice was issued in respect of 8 tanks which were allegedly manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty, and 7 out of those had been admitted by the adjudicating authority to be not excisable goods but erred in...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »