Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 12 of about 296 results (0.008 seconds)Sh. Pankaj Dahiya and anr. Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT647
Gita Mittal, J.1. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have sought the following prayers :-''1. To forward answer Books/sheets of Mid-semester and End semester of Theory-I paper (Eight semester) of both the Petitioners for re-examining the answer and revaluation and rechecking, to an independent authority either I.I.T. or any other independent and Neutral Authority.2. Forward answer Book/Sheet of Mid-semester and End semester of Theory-II paper (Eighth semester) of Petitioner no. 2 for re-examining the answers and revaluation and rechecking of the answer Book, to be forwarded to an independent authority either I.I.T. or any other independent and Neutral Authority.3. To forward the answer Book/Sheet of PR.I in Automobile Engineering of (Eighth Semester) of petitioner no. 1 for re-examining the answers of written Test of PR.I and revaluation and rechecking of the answer Book, to be forwarded to an independent authority either I.I.T. or a...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Gurbux Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT79; 2005(80)DRJ559
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order made by the Reference Court on 23.05.2000 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act').2. The land situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi was sought to be acquired vide notifications under Section 4 and 6 dated 13.02.1981 after following the procedure laid down in the said Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) made the award being Award N. 27/84-85 fixing the market price @ Rs.6,000/- per bigha. Since the said amount was inadequate, a reference was made to the Reference Court and considering the material placed on record, the Reference Court held that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 15,500/- per bigha as the fair market value and all other consequential benefits as indicated in para 10 of the judgment. It is against the fair market value determined by the Reference Court, the present appeal has been preferred.3. Our attention is drawn to decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Prakash Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT88; 2005(80)DRJ566; 2006(2)SLJ398(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. The matter has been heard in great detail.3. My attention has been drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, : AIR1995SC94 , and in particular to the observations in paragraph 13. Sub-paragraphs 6, 7 and 15 of Paragraph 13 are reproduced for facility of reference.6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be ''not genuine'' or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not mor...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT402; 2005(81)DRJ37
B.C. Patel, C.J.CM No. 2415/20051. This is an application filed by the LRs of respondent No. 15 to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 15. The application is supported by Death Certificate of the deceased. Respondent No. 15 late Shri Harchain Singh is survived by the legal heirs mentioned in para 3 of the application being six sons and three daughters. The three daughters, however, are stated not to be desirous of any share in the property and thus the application has been filed to bring on record the six sons of the deceased respondent. The daughters have filed an affidavit in support of the application.2. In view thereof, the application is allowed. It may, however, be noted that the application is filed through Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the appellants. 3. Amended memo of parties be filed within three days.LPA No. 188/19811. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 14.2.1980 made by the learned single Judge in RFA Nos. 134/69, 379...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT300TriDel
1. Even though the appeals are posted today for consideration of stay application, upon hearing both sides it is found that the appeal themselves are required to be disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit, I proceed to consider the appeals.2. The appellants sought remission of duty in respect of certain quantity of molasses lost during storage. The quantity worked out to 0.14% and 0.48% of the total quantity stored. The impugned orders rejected the claim on the ground that spillage loss is not eligible for remission; only storage loss is covered.3. The submission of the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant that it is well accepted that losses occurred during storage of molasses and the Central Board has prescribed a condonable limit upto 2% of the quantity. Learned Chartered Accountant also pointed out that the appellant's claim for spillage also is to be allowed inasmuch as it is unavoidable that small quantity of material is lost on ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiwalaya Spinning and Weaving Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT63TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order dated 28.6.04 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty along with interest and also imposed penalty on them as detailed therein.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground that it has been passed without following the direction contained in the earlier remand order of the Tribunal dated 10.9.2002. The duty and penalty had been wrongly confirmed against the appellants by the adjudicating authority and same deserves to be set aside. The matter according tot he Counsel, deserves to be sent back to the adjudicating authority for passing fresh order in terms of the remand order of the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We find that the appellants imported certain consignment of Acrylic Stable fibre to Taiwan origin. They got the goods cleared on payment of duty but later on, ...
Tag this Judgment!Unilegwear (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC315
2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Notification No.6/2002-CE was disallowed in respect of the Socks manufactured by the appellants.3. The contention of the appellants is that Notification provides nil rate of duty in respect of clothing accessories including handkerchiefs, scarves, mufflers, mantillas, veils, ties, bow ties, cravats, gloves, mittens and mitts., etc. classifiable under sub-heading 6100 or 6200 of the CETA. The contention is that Socks are also clothing accessories and the Notifications provides clothing accessories including certain items, therefore, Socks are also included in the scope of clothing accessories. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Bakelite Hylam (1994 (51) ECR 436) wherein the Tribunal held that where items following the word "including" are though of the type of the main item in the entry, there could be some doubt as to whether the main entry covered them or ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. BhasIn Electricals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC359
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that they were clearing the goods with the brand name of others and goods were cleared without payment of duty.The Commissioner (Appeals in the impugned order confirmed the demand in respect of the goods, which were cleared with the brand names such as BPL, National, Videocon, Onida. In respect of the goods found in the factory, which were with the brand names of Parachute, Skylark and National, the duty was also confirmed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, held that brand names in respect of Welcome and Easy are given to the respondents by an assignment deed and in respect of Regal, Prestige, and Power Mix, the Revenue failed to prove that these brand names belonged go some other manufacturers. The contention of the Revenue is that the authorised signatory, Mrs. Ritu Bhasin in his statement under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Home Care Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT382TriDel
2. The appellants filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 65/87-C.E., was denied to the appellants on the ground that made-up textile articles are manufactured with the aid of power.In this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of made-up textile articles and claiming the benefit of Notification No.65/87-C.E. The Notification provides nil rate of duty to the made-up textile articles classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 6301.00, if these are made without the aid power.3. The contention of appellants is that they are mixing chemicals which are used as dyes with the help of mixture. The contention is that the process of mixing-up of printing paste does not amount to manufacture in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Phoenix Mills Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2004 (168) E.L.T.310]. The contention of the appellants is that as mixing-up of prin...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shyam Tube Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT288TriDel
2. The appellant has already deposited the entire duty demand. In view of this, requirement for pre-deposit of penalty is waived and its recovery is stayed till the disposal of the appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that during the pendency of the stay application Revenue authorities had detained the goods. The detention was entirely unwarranted. The Revenue authorities are directed to release the goods to the appellant. Matter to come up for hearing on 7-6-2005....
Tag this Judgment!