Delhi Court August 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.
Artek Imaging Pvt. Ltd. and Artek Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC207
1. Heard both sides, the applicant filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby the value of the goods imported by the appellant were enhanced and ordered to be confiscated on the ground of misdeclaration. The adjudicating authority allowed redemption of the goods on payment of redemption fine. Personal penalties also imposed.2. The appellant made import of Mini Lab System and declared the year of manufacture as 1994. The appellant also declared the value of the goods as Singapore $ 12,800. On investigation by the Customs authorities it was found that machines were not of the year 1994. As per the EXIM Policy the machines which were of more than 10 years old are restricted and its import requires specific licence. The contention of the appellant is that as per the Engineers Certificate the year of the manufacture is 1994. Therefore, the Revenue has, without any evidence, held that the appellant misdeclared the year of manufacture.The contention of the Revenue is that as pe...
Hotline Wittis Display Devices Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC742
1. In these two appeals arising out of a common Order-in-Original the Appellants are challenging disallowance of Modvat Credit and imposition of penalty. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s.Hotline Wittis Display Devices Ltd., Appellants No. 1, manufacture colour television and avail Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs including colour picture tubes (C.P.T.); that they purchase C.P.Ts.from various manufacturers including L.G. Hotline CPT Ltd., Appellants No. 2; that during January 2000 to January 2001 the Appellant No. 1 had taken Credit of the duty paid on CPTs on the strength of invoices issued by Appellants No. 2; that the said invoices indicated the duty payment particulars by giving reference to either previous invoice number or the buyer's invoice number under which the same were received back under D-3 intimation; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order had disallowed the Modvat Credit on the ground that the Appellants No. 2 ought to have paid...
Cce Vs. Madras Rubber
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC205
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order in original of the adjudicating authority, the issue relates to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 8/99-CE dated 28.2.99 to the respondents in respect of their product known as Tube Repairing Compound. The lower authorities have allowed the benefit of this notification to the respondents by classifying the product under sub-heading 4006.90 of the CETA, after rejecting the classification under sub-heading 4005.90 of the Schedule, propounded by the department.2. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record.Admittedly, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Rubber products i.e. Tread Rubber and Tube Repairing Compound falling under Chapter 40 of the CETA. The dispute is only regarding the classification of Tube Repairing Compound. Heading 40.05 of Chapter 40 relates to the classification of "Compounded ...
Varma Leather Factory and Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.N. Varma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ101
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. On 11.12.87, the appellant herein, who was plaintiff in the suit No. 886/87, instituted the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. It was claimed in the suit that plaintiff/appellant herein is tenant in respect of property No. 1426, Kashmere Gate under Sh. Brij Narayan Khanna . S.N.Verma respondent No.1 who was defendant No.1 in the suit is the real brother of R.N.Verma, the Managing Director of the plaintiff company. Defendant No.1 S.N. Verma who is Advocate by profession had his office in a portion of the suit property as licensee of the plaintiff in the portion marked A and B as shown in the plan attached with the plaint. Defendant No.1 expressed desire to vacate the said portion as it did not suit his professional requirement. The plaintiff thereupon demanded vacant possession but the defendant No.1 instead of handing over possession to the plaintiff, is trying to transfer the possession to defendant No.2 illegally on receiving a huge pagree amount. It was ...
AlauddIn (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives Vs. Hakim Syed Hussa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ75
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby the application filed by the Judgment debtor for rejection/dismissal of execution proceedings instituted by the decree holder was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the petition are that respondent/decree holder filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent, damages etc. against the petitioner/judgment debtor in respect of property in question. The said suit was decreed on 23.5.1978 and the appeal there from was dismissed on 7.3.1981. The provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act were made applicable to this area vide notification No. D/L.B./1850/175/81 dated 2.5.1981 published on 28.5.1981. The decree holder/respondent herein filed the execution petition on 28.4.1982. A subsequent notification dated 3.8.1988 was issued whereby Slum Act ceased to apply to this area. In the meantime, the Execution proceedings could not proceed for one reas...
Mrs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan Vs. Mr. Charanjit Lal Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT788; 2004(77)DRJ82
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner herein filed a suit for possession/ejectment, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendants/respondents alleging therein that premises in question were let out to the respondents/ defendants jointly on monthly rental of Rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated 4.9.77. The tenancy commenced on 1.10.77. Rent was increased from time-to-time @ 10%. For the period from 1.9.98 to 31.8.2001, defendants/respondents paid rent @ 3327/- per month. Then on 28.7.2001 plaintiff served a legal notice on the defendant under Section 6-A read with Section 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') notifying thereby that the rent will be increased by 10% with effect from 1.9.2001. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendants/respondents. Since the monthly rent of the demised premises becomes Rs. 3659/- with effect from 1.9.2001 which is in excess of Rs. 3500/-, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cease to be applicable to the demised premi...
Mcd Vs. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT142
D.K. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, whereby the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the MCD') prays for condensation of delay of 213 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30th January, 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed the MCD to grant vacancy remission to the respondent herein in respect of a plot of land, bearing municipal No. 317-18, Block B, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, for the period it had remained vacant and unproductive of rent for sixty or more consecutive days, as stipulated in Section 164(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The plea of the MCD that an initial letting of the property is a pre-requisite for claim of vacancy remission has not found favor with the learned Judge. We may note at this juncture itself that for coming to the aforementioned conclusion, the learned Judge has relied on an earlier decision of ...
Buns and Cones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT462TriDel
1. The common issue involved in these 4 appeals arising out of 2 Orders-in-Appeal is whether M/s. Buns & Cones Pvt. Ltd. and Sunny Deserts Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacturing of Ice-cream falling under Heading 21.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Buns & Cones Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the business of selling ice-cream of the brand "Baskin Robbins" purchased from M/s. Maharashtra Dairy Products manufacturing Co. Ltd., Pune; that from 1-4-99 the second Appellants M/s. Sunny Deserts Pvt. Ltd. have taken over the operation from Buns & Cones; that the icecream manufactured by M/s. Maharashtra Dairy Products Manufacturing Co. are packed in 4 litres capacity cardboard cartons; that the Appellants sold these ice-cream to their customers in cups in the required quantity and also sold Sundae, Shakes and Blasts made out of these ice-creams and blending it in a mixture; that show cause notices were ...
Taito Watch Manufacturing Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT17TriDel
1. In these three appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original Nos. 5 to 9/2002, dated 7-6-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the issue involved relates to the enhancement of the value of the goods imported by the Appellants.2. Shri C. Harishankar, learned Advocate, mentioned that all the three Appellants, namely M/s. Taito Watch Manufacturing Industries, Appellant No. 1, M/s. Rochi Ram & Sons, Appellant No. 3 and M/s. Rajasthan Watch Manufacturers, Appellant No. 2 imported watch cases, watch dials, leather straps, winding knobs and watch hands from M/s. Legend Watch Manufacturers Ltd. (LWM in short), Hongkong; that they filed five Bills of Entry in which the value was declared as per the invoices received from the foreign suppliers; that the goods imported by the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were assessed to duty on the basis of the invoice price declared and the imported goods were permitted to be cleared on payment of duty; that the goods imported by the Appellants No....
Anant Syntex Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC21
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Anant Syntex Ltd., the issue involved is whether the bar of unjust enrichment will be applicable to the refund of the amount of duty paid under protest.2. We heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR for the Revenue. Both, learned Advocate and learned SDR, agree that the issue involved in the present appeal stands settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC). The Supreme Court in the said judgement did not find any merit in the arguments of the respondents that the payment of duty under protest and payment of duty under provisional assessment are both "on account" payments under the Act. The Supreme Court has held that "duty paid under protest falls under Sec. 11B of the Act whereas duty paid under provisional assessment falls under Rule 9B" of the Rules;" that Section 11B deals with claim for refund whereas Rule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »