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.
Servesham Construction Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC598
1. The above captioned two appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Original vide which the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 90,281 with equal amount of penalty and interest, against the company -- appellant No. 1, and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on appellant No. 2 -- the Managing Director of the Company. The duty demand alongwith penalty has been confirmed against the company for having manufactured and cleared two mild steel/Carbon steel storage tank without payment of duty. On appellant No. 2 penalty has been imposed under Rule 209-A being the Managing Director of the Company who facilitated the company in the evasion of the duty on those storage tanks.2. The learned Counsel has contended that show, cause notice was issued in respect of 12 tanks which were allegedly manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty, and 10 out of those had been admitted by the adjudicating authority to be not excisable goods. He...
Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Gajra Gears Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC355
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether the "3 FAG Pallets" manufactured by M/s. Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd., are classifiable under Heading No. 84.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order or under sub-heading No. 7326.90 of the Tariff as claimed by Revenue.2. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 220/2002-2003, dated 3-7-2002 has classified the Pallets under sub-heading 7326.90 of the Tariff and disallowed the benefit of ex- emption Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 on the ground that Pallets are not parts of fork lift trucks since the fork lift trucks are complete without the impugned Pallets and Heading 73.26 is not covered by Notification No. 67/95- CE; that, however, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has allowed the Respondent's appeal on the ground that the Pallets are material hand...
Sunsui India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT459TriDel
1. M/s. Sunsui (India) Ltd. (appellants in E/2106/2002/NB) were engaged, in the manufacture of wrist watches and alarm clocks of Headings 91.02/91.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and were availing the facility of MODVAT/CENVAT credit. Watches and clocks of MRP not exceeding Rs. 500/- were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellants were liable to reverse MODVAT/CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 4,22,434/- which they had already availed in respect of duty-paid inputs lying as such in stock as on 29-2-2000 as well as duty-paid inputs contained in the final products lying in stock as on the said date and cleared at 'Nil' rate of duty (under the above Notification) on or after 1-3-2000. The original authority, following the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Khanbhai Esoofbhai v. Collector [1999 (107) E.L.T. 557] and the CBEC Circular No. 591/28/2001/C.E., dated 16-10-2001, held that the...
Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. the Commissioner, Kendriya
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ383CAT
1. Applicant impugns memorandum dated 14.2.2002, initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which are continued as a deemed proceedings after superannuation of applicant as well as order dated 8.5.2003, where the request of applicant for withdrawing the disciplinary proceedings is turned down.2. The brief relevant factual matrix relevant for adjudication is that applicant joined as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS). By an order dated 5.5.1994 applicant was transferred from KV-2 Ambala Cantt to KV Bandipur, Jammu & Kashmir.Applicant preferred several representations as she was not maintaining good health for leave on medical grounds on 22.11.1994. On 7.2.1995, applicant made a request giving option of various schools for the purpose of posting. On 19.5.95 the Hon'ble Minister concerned has passed an order staying the transfer. By an order dated 31.5.95 as a consequence of the above transfer of applicant was m...
S.S.L. and ors. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC237
1. Respondent-UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") filed O.A. 418/1997 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT") against the appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants-defendants") for the recovery of Rs. 3,56,93,045.03 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 27.8.1998, passed the exparte final order for the above said amount with interest and costs.2. The appellants-defendants filed an application dated 20.10.1998 for setting aside the above said ex parte final order. They urged, among other things, that in the last week of September, 1998 the appellants-defendants, through 2nd appellant-defendant, came to know from the office of the respondent-Bank about these proceedings, on which they applied for the certified copy of the order which was delivered to them on 13.10.1998. They have also stated that on or about 28.9.1998, the appellants-defendants came to k...
Shri Sanjeev Malhotra Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)91ITD76(Delhi)
1. The following question has been referred to me by the Hon'ble President Under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant during the relevant year was engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise, so as to entitle it the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 2. After going through both the orders of my learned brothers, it is seen that the above question does not cover the real point of difference arising from such orders. The learned Judicial member has expressed his opinion that assessee is not entitled to deduction Under Section 80HHC for two reasons - firstly, no deduction can be allowed unless there is export during the year under consideration which assessee has failed to establish. Secondly, it cannot be said that assessee was engaged in the business of export, which is a condition precedent for claiming such deduction. On the other hand, the learned...
Societe Pepper Grenoble S.A.R.L. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi376; 2004(2)ARBLR198(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT29; 2004(75)DRJ154
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 1st March, 2003 by Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.) and a declaration that the Arbitration Clause in the contract is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioner as a consequence seeks stay of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal.2. By order dated 1st March, 2003, the Arbitrator Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.) rejected the objections filed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. Petitioner filed a review petition and an application for reconsideration of the order dated 1st March, 2003. The said application for reconsideration and review was also rejected vide orders dated 12.3.2003, holding that there was no power of review conferred on the Arbitral Tribunal under the Act.3. Vide orders dated 10.9.2003, my learned...
Brigadier J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT626; 2004(74)DRJ649
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order issued by Director, Institute of Nuclear Medicines and Allied Sciences (INMAS) dated 3rd September, 2003 under the authority of Head Quarter, Western Command. By the said impugned order the petitioner Brigadier J.K. Bansal, VSM has been attached with Head Quarter Technical Group EME, Delhi Cantt. This has been done pursuant to a complaint by one civilian Trilok Chand. The complaint was that the petitioner got admission of his daughter in Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology in B.E. Course on the basis of false certificate about his disability, under defense Quota rules of Delhi University. 3. It was contended before us by Shri Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered injury in 1984 in the field operation during Operation Blue Star and second injury in 1989 at peace station. It was contended that pursuant to the guidelines of Delhi University pertaining to defense ...
A.K. Sheoran Vs. Amar Sang and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT77
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Crl.Rev.P. 437/1997 and Crl. Rev.P. 515/1997.2. These revision petitions seek to challenge the order dated 2nd August, 1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 15/1989, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (for short 'the N.C.B.) under Section 307, Cr.P.C. and has declined to grant pardon to Amar Sang, the accused.3. The case of the prosecution as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge is as under:'The case of the prosecution briefly is that on 22.8.97 at around 1.30 a.m. 4 kg of heroin was recovered form the checked in bag of accused Amar Sang while she was on her way to Frankfurt and which contraband been obtained by accused Ravi Sharma from an Afgani national named Shafi at the instance of one Puran Singh who was till date not been apprehended by the NCB. Accused Vijay Kumar was an associate of Puran Singh in this alleged business of drug trafficking and he had packed the ...
In Re: Steel Kingdom Netcom Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas441(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT901; [2005]59SCL544(Delhi)
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, petitioner M/s. Steel Kingdom Netcom Limited (hereinafter 'Transferor Company') is seeking sanction of the scheme of Merger/Amalgamation of M/s. Indo German International Private Limited (hereinafter 'Transferee Company') with Transferor Company.2. The registered offices of both the companies are situated at 8B, Sagar, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, which are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.3. The petition is supported by copies of Memorandum and Articles of Association, Annual Reports for the year ending 31.3.2003 of both the companies. It is also accompanied by copy of the scheme of Merger/Amalgamation. By order dated 24.11.2003 passed in C.A.(M) No. 149/2003, holding of the meeting of Equity Shareholders and creditors of the petitioner company was dispensed with in view of the fact that all the shareholders and creditors of the company had given their written consent to the propos...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »