Delhi Court July 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Latex Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT138TriDel
1. In the above captioned appeals, the Revenue has questioned the validity of that part of the common impugned in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the duty and the penalty confirmed against the respondents by the adjudicating authority, as detailed therein.2. The learned JDR has contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the statements of the Director and the employees of the respondent No. 1 company, and wrongly reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who held the respondents guilty of clandestine removal of 8,000 kgs. of laminated pouch rolls during the period July to October, 1998. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and argued that the alleged statements of the Director and employees of the respondents have been rightly not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) being contrary to the documentary evidenc...
S.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC665
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of different brands of Gutkha. On 2.8.99 the officer of Revenue department visited the factory of the appellant and during the search of the factory certain computer generated sheets were recovered and it was also found that there were discrepancies in the stock of raw material as well as the finished product as per their statutory record. The statement of the Managing Director Shri Naveen Jhanjee was recorded where he admitted that the computer generated sheets related to the clearance of Gutkha manufactured by the appellant without payment of duty. A show-cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the finished goods and inputs which were in excess of the recorded balance and demand of Central Excise duty in respect of the goods cleared without payment of duty. The penal action was also proposed ...
Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC537
2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case the benefit of Modvat credit was denied in respect of Sodium Hydro Sulphide as input and in respect of Speed Motor, EOT Crane and spare parts like Steel Pipes, Elbow etc. as capital goods.3. The appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction. The show-cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise for recovery of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules. The contention of the appellant is that the Superintendent of Central Excise was not competent to issue the notice under Rule 57-I. As per the Board's Circular dated 20.12.88, it is clarified that in respect of wrong availment of Modvat credit, respective adjudicating officers should issue and decide the show-cause notice.4. The Ld. SDR produced the notification issued under Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules specifying the proper officer under the Central Excise Rules and for issue of show-cau...
Ajay JaIn Vs. Atul Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR285(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ534
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even after service of notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly the matter is taken up for hearing. A collaboration agreement for reconstruction and redevelopment of the property measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing plot No. 17 in Block No. 3, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was undertaken by the petitioner, the respondent being the owner thereof. The relevant clause 2 of the Collaboration Agreement provided as follows:-'....... It is also agreed between the parties that the Upper Ground Floor and the Second Floor together with the terrace/roof rights over and above the Second Floor up the limit of the sky and the entire entrance and stair hall area from ground level to roof shall be owned and retained by the First Party; and Lower Ground Floor and First Floor shall be owned and retained by Second Party after completion of construction and all other works in the entire b...
Jasola Vihar Residents Welfare Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT286
ORDER1. These two cross-appeals by the writ petitioner and the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA' for short) are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge directing the DDA to take necessary action within a period of four weeks for removal of 119 persons, who are in unauthorised occupation on a piece of land in Dwaraka with a further direction that in case any decision is taken to make allotment of plots to these 119 persons, the same principle should be applied for resettlement of 446 other unauthorised occupants, the writ petitioners, who were also residing in Jasola Vihar and had allegedly been removed from there along with the said 119 persons.2. While dismissing the writ petition filed by an association, claiming to be the representative of the said 446 persons, the leaned Single Judge has taken note of the stand of the DDA that all of them were encroachers on the Government land in Jasola Vihar and that no allotments of any land had been made in favor of 119 evictees...
Jai Kishan Bansal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)SLJ507(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.Petitioner Shri Jai Kishan Bansal was working with Indo Tibetan Border Police (in short 'ITBP') as a Head Constable/Plumber in the payscale of Rs. 3200-4900. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (in short 'DMRC')-respondent No. 2 issued a circular dated 22-24/6/2002 to the parent department, i.e. I.T.B.P. Tigri Camp notifying their requirement of 'Supervisor or Non-Supervisor' in their organization. Petitioner applied in response to the circular and appeared before the Screening Committee of respondent No. 2 and was selected.2. Petitioner with the consent of his parent department i.e. ITBP, was posted on deputation with respondent No. 2 for a tenure of three to five years vide office order No. DMRC/Estt/1573/1574/1575/2002 dated 23rd September, 2004 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Annexure P-2 gives the list of selected candidates. It carries the stipulation that deputatio...
Bhagwan Das and ors. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)SLJ447(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to place them above respondents 3 to 7 in seniority. Direction is also sought against respondents 1 and 2 i.e. University of Delhi and Delhi University Press to grant to the petitioners appropriate pay scales as that of Compositors and also direct deduction of contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI. Petitioners also seek direction to respondents 1 & 2 to grant arrears of salary at the rate and dates from when their juniors are being paid as Compositors. Regularization of service is also sought on the footing that respondents 3 to 7, who were junior to them have been regularized.2. The admitted facts as emerge from the record may be noted :Petitioners were working as daily wages from 16.1.1975 in the Delhi University Press. Petitioners claim that their services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 25.1.1976 Disputes had arisen, which were referred by the State Government t...
Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Som Distilleries and Breweries Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas786(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 433(e) and Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' for short) praying for winding up of Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., respondent herein. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent owes a sum of Rs. 1,23,04,312.50 to the petitioner and it has failed to pay this amount even after statutory notice dated June 7, 2001 under Section 433(e) of the Act was served upon the respondent. According to the petitioner, thereforee, it is clear that the respondent-company is unable to pay the debt.2. The circumstances under which the amount became due are stated in the petition by alleging that in or about July, 1999 the respondent approached the petitioner to act as the respondent's advertisers and media managers to advertise the products of the respondent on various channels. Agreement for this purpose was entered into. Terms and conditions were recorded in the letter dated July ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Raj Forging and Gears Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT271TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant took credits of Rs. 2 lakh each on 14.10.97 and 24.10.97 in PLA whereas the amounts were deposited in Govt. Accounts on 15.10.97 and 25.10.97. Therefore, there was no sufficient balance in the PLA at the time of clearance of the goods on 14.10.97 and 24.10.97.3. The contention of the respondent is that the cheques were presented in bank on 14.10.97 and 24.10.97 in pursuance to the deposit of the presentation of the cheque. The amounts were credited on the next day in Govt. account and the date of presentation of cheque is the date on which they can take credit. The respondent relied upon the Board Circular No. 86/2003-Cus., dated 3.10.2003 where it was clarified that in respect of Central Excise Duty and Service Tax, the date of payment will be the date of presentation of the cheque in the bank subject to realisation of the cheque. In the...
Chetan Foundries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT617TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the service tax liability of the appellants for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 as recipient of the service provided to them by the transport company.Both the authorities below have confirmed the service tax amounting to Rs. 2,95,493/- for the above said period, on the appellants, by taking the view that they stand covered for tax liability under Sections 70 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2003.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the case of the appellants squarely stands covered by the Division Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II wherein it has been ruled that the person receiving taxable service, from goods transport operators, did not stand covered by the provisions of Sections 70 and 73 of the Finance Act as these were before the amendment and that after the amendment, such a...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »