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.
Avon Tubes Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC616Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Avon Tubes Limited relates to determination of assessable value of steel tubes consumed captively by them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture steel tubes which are sold by them to independent buyers and also are used captively in their other units namely Unit No. 1 and Unit No. II for the manufacture of Bicycle parts; that the Department has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that the value has to be ascertained as 115% of the cost of manufacturer; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned order has rejected their appeal holding that the assessable value of captively consumed goods is to be determined as per the provision of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000.The learned Advocate further submitted that Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules does not have application in respect of cases where only part qu...
Scj Plastics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC23
1. These appeals are filed against the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief Facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PV/PVC/PS Master Batches and inorganic/pigment preparations and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final product. A SCN was issued for denial of credit of Rs. 1,55,01,539 on the ground that the credit was availed without receipt of the inputs in the factory and some inputs were cleared as such without payment of duty. The appellant filed reply and thereafter adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 52,00,000 and imposed penalties on the ground that the appellant have been showing excess consumption on costly inputs in the manufacture of final product to avail higher Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on these inputs.3. The contention of the appellant is that the SCN was issued on the ground that credit was taken without r...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.C. Manufacturers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT193TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,49,469/- with penalty of equal amount against the respondents and separate penalty on its partner D.S. Sodhi of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The learned JDR has contended that the confessional statements of D.S. Sodhi, partner of the respondent's firm and of D.K. Bajpai, authorised signatory, have been ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) while reversing the order-in-original. He has also contended that parallel invoices were recovered from the factory premises of the respondents and those have been also not taken note of by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that there was no confessional statement of Shri D.S. Sodhi regarding the clandestine removal of the goods. Moreover, h...
Guard Electronics Systems Pvt. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC761
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Guard Electronics Systems Pvt. Limited, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE was available to the goods manufactured and cleared by them.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture Uninterrupted Power Supply Systems (UPSS), that Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1.3.97 exempts Scientific and Technical instrument apparatus equipment and their accessories and spare parts if supplied to Public funded Research Institution or a University or an Indian Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore or a Regional Engineering College subject to the conditions specified in the Notification; that one of the condition stipulated in the notification is that the Institution should be registered with the Government of India in the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research and the manufacturer produces at the time of clearance, a certificate from the Head of the Institution...
Housing and Urban Development Vs. Dsa Engineers (Bombay)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi446; 2004(3)ARBLR118(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ573
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2004 of the learned Single Judge setting aside the award regarding claims No. 2A & 5 and upholding the award regarding other claims the appellant has filed the present appeal. Before the learned Single Judge the argument was advanced on behalf of the appellant/objector, restricting his arguments and objections to claim Nos.1, I-E to 2-A, 5 & 6. It seems that apart from these arguments advanced in Court, the appellant submitted its written submissions, also in respect of claim Nos. 1-H, 1-H(C), 2-F though arguments were not advanced in the Court in respect of these claims. 2. In this appeal, Mr. Kumar learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he is confining his arguments only in relation to claim No. 3 in the award made by the arbitrators and rejection of his arguments by the learned Single Judge in relation to said claim No. 3. From perusal of orders of learned Single Judge, it is evident that no argument had been advanced...
Lakshmi Chand Textiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi2; 113(2004)DLT714; 2004(76)DRJ608
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.This appeal is preferred by the appellant contending, inter alia, that the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment and decree dated 27th July, 1981 erred in law in holding that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover damages on the basis of the assessment made by the railway about the loss and also in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest under any law. According to the appellant/plaintiff the appellant is entitled to recover damages on a higher rate than what is assessed by the railway and also for payment of interest on the entire amount, which is awarded as damages.2.The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.84,570/- along with interest both pendente lite and future. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff through their Bombay office tendered a consignment comprising 12 bales containing Indian Sewing Thread weighing 25.10 quintals to the Western Railway for onward ...
Friends Central Govt. Employees Co-operative Housing Building Society ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT717; 2004(77)DRJ37
Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition filed by the society challenges the order passed on 13.5.1994 by respondent no.3, the Delhi Co-operative Societies Tribunal; order dated 8.3.1994 passed by respondent no.5, Deputy Registrar (Arbitration), Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, order dated 23.4.1992 and 29.6.1992 passed by respondent no.4, Joint Registrar (Arbitration) and order dated 12.4.1999 passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Earlier the society also had litigation with the Office of the Registrar of Societies challenging its order superseding the Managing Committee of the society, we need not go into the details of that litigation.2. The case of petitioner society with regard to respondent no.6 is that about 100 members including respondent no.6 had been in default and thereforee, after due notice in accordance with the resolution of the General Body they had been removed from the list of members. During the pendency of the proceedings filed by the society being C...
Suchita Steel (India) Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR221(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT351; 2004(77)DRJ171
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This application raises the objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on behalf of the respondent/objector/ Northern Railways through Union of India to the Award dated 30th October 2000 which was corrected on 31st October 2000. While several objections were raised in this petition the only objection seriously pressed into service during arguments by the learned counsel for the respondents was that his plea regarding the interpretation of the effect of the price variation clause by the learned arbitrator.2. The brief facts of the case averred by the petitioner are :a) that the purchase order was placed on 3rd February 1992 for supply of 50,000 Nos. of M.S. Tie bars on the petitioner, M/s Suchita Steels (India), by the Union of Indiab) that only material clause for the purpose of deciding the objections urged is the price variation clause which reads as under: 'Price Variation Clause Applicable Rate is based on ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mohan Behari Jasod Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ469; (2005)139PLR32
Gita Mittal, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in civil suit no. 117/1979 entitled Mohan Behari Jasod Kumari Versus Union of India and M/s Oswal Stores by the Union of India, defendant no. 1 in the suit.2. M/s Mohan Behari Jasod Kumari, plaintiff, arrayed as respondent no. 1 herein, had brought the civil suit no. 117/1979 on the plea that it lodged two consignments with the Railway Administration at New Delhi for carriage and delivery to itself at Aluabari Road. These two consignments were duly accepted and booked at one rate which was the railway risk rate prescribed by the Railways for the booking of such consignments. It was contended that these suit consignments were clubbed with other two consignments which had been booked on 11th September, 1977. All four consignments were in perfectly sound condition at the forwarding station and were loaded and packed as per the railway ...
Wockhardt Limited Vs. Chemetac Pharmaceuticals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ435; 2004(29)PTC533(Del)
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Through this petition which is under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 20.8.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge directing the plaintiff to amend his plaint and incorporate facts disclosing the identity, legal character and status of the defendant so that court can come to conclusion that the defendant being sued is a 'person', even before ordering issuance of summons of the notice.2. Briefly stated facts leading to this petition are that, petitioner herein filed a suit under Sections 27(2), 28 & 29 read with Sections 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 alleging that the petitioner has been manufacturing analgesic pharmaceutical product containing 10 mg of Dicyclomine Hydrochloride IP 65 mg of Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride BP and 400 mg of Acetamnophen IP. The plaintiff has been using 'SPASMO PROXYVON' as their trade mark for last 26 years and by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »