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.
G.K. Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC49
1. Notification No. 45/94-Cus., dated 1-3-94 exempts goods specified therein "when imported into India for use in the Leather Industry" from so much of the duty of Customs which is in excess of 20%. Under the heading, "components, consumables and other items," the Notification exempts "insoles or mid-soles and sheets therefore" at Sl. No. 3. The appellants in the present case imported a consignment of "Texon insole sheets for Footwear Industry from Quatar at a value of 8400 Italian Lira (ITL) per sheet". Under the impugned orders, Customs authorities have held that the consignment was undervalued and it is required to be assessed at the value of 20,000 ITL per sheet. The revised valuation is stated to be in terms of contemporaneous import by other parties. The appellants have also been denied exemption under Notification No.45/94-C.E. on the ground that they were only a trader and, therefore, goods cannot be treated as for use in the Leather Industry. There is also mention in the orde...
Bhilwara Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC95
1. In this appeal filed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 22-10-2003, the issue relates to the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment to the refund claim of the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since duty was paid after the clearance of the goods when the annual capacity of production of the appellant's factory, was finally determined by the Commissioner, vide order dated 16-4-99. Therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply to their case.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the processing of textile fabrics as independent processors. They filed a refund claim on the ground that they had paid excess duty on account of inclusion of length of galleries while determining their annual capacity of production under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Process...
Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Inds. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT286TriDel
2. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.4. The appellants applied for remission of duty in respect of molasses under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the molasses in question were destroyed during handling and storage. The application was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the appellants have not followed the procedure as they have to apply within 24 hours from the loss of the goods.5. The contention of the appellants is that shortage is less than 2%.The actual shortage is 9% and as per Board's Circulars dated 6-2-1982 and 18-7-1983 in Sugar Industries, 2% loss is permissible. The contention is that variation in the stock is less than 1%. Therefore, they are entitled to the remission of duty. The appellants relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:-Shamli Distillery & Chemical Works v. CCE, Meerut, 2003 (161) E.L.T. 764 = 2003 (59) RLT 654, andBalrampur Chini ...
Charak Pharma Private Limited Vs. Prashi Pharma Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC458(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for a temporary injunction restraining infringement of trade mark of the plaintiff and also restraining passing of the goods of the defendant as that of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff herein is a manufacturer and merchant of Ayurvedic medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of various trade marks in India in respect of goods falling in clause 5. The registration of the aforesaid trade marks is also being renewed from time to time. During its course of business, the plaintiff is also manufacturing and marketing a product under the distinctive trade mark ''M2 Tone'' in a syrup base as well as in the form of tablets. The aforesaid trade mark ''M2 Tone''of the plaintiff is registered in India since 1965 in respect of goods falling in class 5. The said registration is renewed, valid and subsisting in the Registe...
Sudhir Goel Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi7; 112(2004)DLT249; 2004(75)DRJ195
ORDER WHEREAS shop No.9 Meena Bazar, Red Fort Complex, Delhi was originally under the management and control of the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Red Fort, Delhi which was subsequently transferred to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in 1958, being a successor body, on account of transfer and merger of the said Notified Area Committee, Red Fort in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. AND WHEREAS at present Shop No.9 is in your occupation. AND WHEREAS pursuant to Civil Writ Petition No.3313/99 - In re. Society for Protection of the Heritage and Culture Versus Union of India & Others filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Public Interest Litigation, directions were sought therein, interalia, for the removal of the shops at Meena Bazar, Red Fort complex, for maintenance and protection of heritage at Red Fort being a historical national monument. AND WHEREAS the Govt. of India, Ministry of defense, decided to vacate the sites under their occupation being used by the Army and minu...
Rite Approach Group Ltd. Vs. Rosoboronexport
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR316(Delhi); 111(2004)DLT816; 2004(75)DRJ104
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner, a Company incorporated and based in Singapore has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' only) against the respondent a Russian State owned Company seeking injunction against the respondent from collecting from Government of India the price of the two helicopters supplied by it without setting apart a sum of Rs.28.8 crores being commission to the petitioner at the rate of 16% of the price. Prayers have also been made for injuncting the Government of India from making full payment of the two helicopters to the respondent and also from restraining the respondent from delivering the helicopters to the Government of India. It is also prayed that a Receiver be appointed to collect on behalf of the petitioner the aforesaid commission from the Government of India which is claimed by the petitioner for services rendered to the respondent in regard to the supply of helicopters to t...
Manmohan Singh Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2919; 111(2004)DLT731; 2004(77)DRJ341
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.Crl. M.A. 4576 of 2004:Allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl. M.C. 1491 of 2002:Notice. Mr. HJS Ahluwalia accepts notice.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.1999 of the learned Special Judge whereby the learned Judge, while admitting the petitioner to bail, has directed him to deposit his passport with the Court. The learned Special Judge has further directed him not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has travelled abroad with permission of the Court on as many as eight occasions and on each occasion the Court has desired of him to furnish a bank guarantee/FDR for a substantial amount. He also submits that the petitioner is frequently required to travel abroad on account of medical treatment and that again permission takes considerable time besides increasing workload.3. Heard Counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the CBI. Counsel for the CBI ...
Dr. Shakuntala Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT797; 2005(3)SLJ65(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner joined service under the MCD as C.A.S. Grade-I (Radiology) on 1.4.1959. She was posted at Victoria Janana Hospital (presently known as Kasturba Hospital). Her services were confirmed on 24.10.1961.2. On 1.1.1965 all doctors under the MCD were automatically inducted under the Union of India in the Central Health Scheme. It may be noted that initially, these employees were treated on deputation.3. Duputation, as normally understood, being by consent of the employee, service under a different employer, is not applicable to the present concept of deputation as petitioner proceeded under the Union of India as per policy decision.4. Petitioner retired from service on 30.6.1980. She retired under the Union of India. Retiral benefits received by the petitioner which was paid by Union of India included the amount lying credited in her General Provident Fund Account. It may be clarified that the amount deducted by the MCD from the salary of the petitioner and c...
Ravi Shanker Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)340
ORDERS.C. TIWARI, A.M.These 8 appeals have been filed by the assessed on 26-9-2000, against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Meerut, dated 27-7-2000, in the case of the assessed in relation to assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 148 for assessment years 1987-88 to 1994-95. These appeals relate to the interest received by the assessed on delayed payment of compensation to the assessed for acquisition of its agricultural lands. Facts of the case leading to these appeals briefly are that original assessments under section 143(3)/143(l) were completed in the case of the assessed for assessment years 1987-88 to 1994-95 in regular course. Subsequently, according to the learned assessing officer, during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1995-96 it was noticed that the assessed had received enhanced compensation amounting to Rs. 35,29,710 in respect of assessed's lands situated at Nangla Battu, Meerut. Besides, the assessed had also ...
Ramesh Chandra Khurana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ434
D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. In this habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Khurana, challenges the order made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the detaining authority') under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (for short 'the COFEPOSA'). The order of detention dated 12 Nov. 2003 was served on the petitioner on 18 Nov. 2003 along with grounds of detention of even date, formulated by the detaining authority, based on his subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future.3. Briefly stated, the facts, as can be culled out from the grounds of detention, which are in the narrative form, are as follows :On the basis of specific information, gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi to the effect that the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »