Delhi Court September 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.
Cce Vs. Jai Sinter Polycon (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC471
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 3.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the powder manufacture by the respondents from the granules is not marketable and hence is not liable for central Excise duty.2. The contention of the Revenue is that Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the fact that same powder is manufactured and sold in the market by the other manufacturer M/s Polycon International Ltd., therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that powder in question is not marketable are not sustainable.3. The contention of the respondents is that on 31.1.2003 when officers of the Revenue department visited their factory and verified the fact that whether powder manufactured by the appellant is marketable.Revenue officers prepared a visit note and in the visit note it was specifically mentioned that the powder manufactured by the respondents was sensitive to lump formation, whereas, powd...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Wonderax Laboratories (i) Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT427TriDel
1. These are three appeals, filed by the Revenue against common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 15-17/2004, dated 24-3-2004, by which the Commissioner (Appeals), has allowed the appeals filed by M/s. Wonderax Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Shri U.S. Kapoor and confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Paragon Fragrances and has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-.2. Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocate at the outset, submitted that the Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 43/03, dated 28-11-2003, has confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,450/- against M/s.Paragon Fragrances and has imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on them as they had manufactured and cleared room fresheners bearing the brand name 'ESTELLA' which was the brand name used by M/s. Wonderax Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd.; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty against the said Company and reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-; that in the Memorandum of Appeal, filed against M/s. Parago...
Executive Engineer Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC232
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that burden of duty has been passed on to the customers. The only contention of the appellant is that the goods are captively consumed, therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable.2. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (116) ELT 401 held that principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in the case of captive consumption also. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the appellant have recovered the amount of Central Excise duty from their customers in the cost of the power supplied to them. The cost of generation and distribution of power is taken into consideration while fixing the rate of power at which the appellants were supplying the power to the customers. This finding is not contro...
Sunil Manchanda and ors. Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR100(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT813; 2004(76)DRJ648
R.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996 seeking appointment of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute and differences between the parties.2. The petition has been filed on behalf of six petitioners namely Mr.Sunil Manchanda, M/s Puri Construction Ltd., M/s Florentine Estates of India Ltd., M/s Mad Entertainment Network Ltd., Mr.Arjun Puri and Mr.Mohinder Puri with the averments and allegations that the petitioners acting upon the representations of the Ansal Brothers of the respondent M/s Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. entered into an agreement 'Development Agreement' on 14.10.2000 in regard to the development of approximately 19 acres of land in Sector 53, Gurgaon. Clause 51 of the agreement contains an arbitration agreement, which reads as under:'51. All disputes arising...
Alcatel India Limited and anr. Vs. Koshika Telecom Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR107(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ524
R.C. Jain, J.1. The above named petitioners have filed the present application for enforcement of foreign award (award of the London Court of International Arbitration No. 1291) dated 28.5.2003 under Part-II Chapter-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for execution thereof.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present application, in brief, are that petitioner No. 1 Alcatel India Limited had supplied to respondent No. 1 Koshika Telecom Limited, telecom equipments for a contract price of Rs. 207.80 crores pursuant to certain agreements entered in 1996. It is alleged that in breach of the contract, Koshika did not pay any monies for the telecom equipments supplied to it. On 07.9.2000 petitioners No. 1 and 2 on one hand and respondents No. 1 to 3 on the other had entered into a settlement agreement under which the respondents were made jointly and severally liable to pay to Alcatel India Limited a total sum of Rs. 75.00 c...
Arun Industries Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ541; [2005(104)FLR122]; (2005)ILLJ331Del; 2005(3)SLJ9(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 1st February 1982 passed by the Labour Court in LCID No.23 of 1977.2. The question that was referred for adjudication is as follows:'Whether the services of Shri Hari Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled?'3. The Respondent/workman was in the employment of the Petitioner since sometime in 1973. During February-March 1977 he received a message from his native place regarding his gona. Accordingly, he applied for leave on 25th March 1977 for about a month during April and May 1977 but no action was taken on the leave application. Again on 5th April 1977 he applied for leave but it was refused on the ground that many workmen had applied for leave one month in advance, and he would be allowed leave only on their return. According to the Respondent/workman he again applied for leave and it was orally sanctioned, so he left for his native village.4. According to the P...
Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT178
T.S. Thakur, J. 1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner company calls in question the legality of a demand raised by the respondents for the recovery of what is described as 'undercharge' in connection with certain consignments transported by the railways. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are few and may be summarised as under : 2. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of Pig Iron at Raipur in the State of Chattisgarh. The stocks so manufactured are transported by rail and/or by road from Raipur to various distributors and customers all over the country. The respondents have provided a dedicated railway siding in the proximity of the petitioner's plants at Siltara known as 'Nackast railway siding' under the Mandhar railway station. For the transport of goods by rail, the petitioner places an indent upon the Station Superintendent, Mandhar station for carriage to various destinations. A railway receipt indicating the freight charge...
Vaish Brothers and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR225(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT354; 2004(77)DRJ206
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. Appointment of an arbitrator is claimed by the petitioner by this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioner is a contractor and respondent No.1 is a Military Engineer Services an organization under Ministry of defense and respondent No. 2 is the Engineer in chief of respondent No. 1. Tenders were invited by respondent No. 1 for the work of construction of production shop at Project Site in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner being a eligible contractor participated in the tender and submitted his tender and upon acceptance of the terms of the tender, the same was awarded to the petitioner by virtue of the order dated 15th February 1985. It is not disputed that the work was completed beyond the stipulated time and the petitioner thereafter raised certain disputes which were not referred to arbitration leading to the present petition.2. The petitioner has relied upon clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract IAFW 2259 which indisputably i...
Balbir Singh Vs. the Authorisation Committee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi413
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Balbir Singh, 57 years old, suffering from Hepatitis-C related Cirrhosis of liver end stage disease with portal hypertension, filed this writ petition. He assailed the rejection of request for donation of liver by his brother Baljit Singh for transplantation. Petitioner required transplantation of liver. His brother Baljit Singh offered to donate part of his liver for transplantation. The Authorization Committee-respondent No. 1 of the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital-respondent No. 2 declined to permit transplantation. It did so since HLA Typing Test conducted on the donee Baljit Singh failed to establish his near relationship with the petitioner. The Authorization Committee intimated the petitioner that if he still wanted to proceed with the transplantation, a detailed study of other family members' HLA typing was required.2. The petition came up before this Court on 21st January, 2004 when notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why...
Subhash Chander Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT70
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the demand raised by the respondent on account of interest and restoration charges and to issue directions to the respondent to deliver possession of the Plot in Rohini Residential Scheme, Delhi.2. The facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner owned land admeasuring 1 bigha and 1 biswa forming part of Khasra No. 61/8/1 (Min) situated in Village Samaypur, Delhi which was acquired by Delhi Administration vide Award dated 27.3.1985. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Delhi Administration to the respondent for allotment of a plot of land admeasuring 250 sq. yds. vide letter dated 13.1.1993, the petitioner was allotted a plot No. 2 in Pocket No. 15, Sector No. 19 in Rohini Residential Scheme admeasuring 200 sq. yds. on perpetual leasehold basis and the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,15,546/- which was deposited by the petitioner on 11.2.1993. It is stated tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »