Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Himachal Wire Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT303TriDel
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. Though the appeals are posted today only for consideration of stay applications, upon perusing the records and hearing both sides, it is seen that appeals themselves are required to be disposed of at this stage.2. The respondent is a manufacturer of Galvanized Iron Wire. It made some supplies to World Bank Aided Projects. Such supplies are treated as deemed export, and as a result, no excise duty is required to be paid. Since the respondents herein cleared the goods on payment of duty, it claimed as refund of the duty so paid. Under the impugned Order, the refund has been allowed.3. The present appeals of the Revenue point out that refund should have been allowed in Cenvat Credit account and not in cash. The contention of the Revenue has no merit. Circular No. 220/54/96-CX dated 4-6-1996 of the Board specifically advised payment in cash, even in the case of unutilized Modvat credit relating to exports. The Board's Circular also specifically...
Tag this Judgment!National Cement Corporation Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC433
1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to classification of Rapid Hardening Cement manufactured by the appellants. They had classified the product under sub-hearing 2502.29 whereas the stand of the Revenue is that the cement manufactured by the appellant does not fall under this sub heading as it is not an ordinary Potland cement and as such deserves classification under sub heading 2502.90 2. We find that the issue already stand settled in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Mine Aid Products v. CC Raipur 2003 162 ELT 213 wherein such a cement has been classified under sub heading 2502.29. In the light of this judgement of the Tribunal, which squarely covers the case of the appellants, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, as per law....
Tag this Judgment!Aarvee Denims and Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT297TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original vide which duty and penalties as detailed in the impugned order, have been confirmed against the appellants for the period April to June, 1997 and October, 1997 to December, 1997.2. The appellants during the above said period were engaged in the manufacture of finished as well as unfinished fabrics which were exempt from payment of duty till 4-3-96 in terms of Notification No. 40/95, dated 16-3-95. However, that notification was later on amended and the fabric on which sewing process was carried out by the assessee, was made dutiable. The appellants continued manufacturing and clearing processed well as unprocessed fabrics after this amendment. They had been putting in common lot numbers on the lots of the goods for identification purposes. The factory premises of the appellants were raided by the Customs officers on 9-12-97 and some lots of the goods were seized by them. The statements of the buyer...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Chopra Vs. Chopra Gems
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC329; 118(2005)DLT536; 2005(81)DRJ416
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this suit for recovery of money under Order xxxvII of the CPC, the defendant company has made an application for the grant of leave to defend. The striking feature of the defendant's case is that the liability to pay the suit amount of Rs. 52,16,334/- is undisputed. The documents placed on record by the defendant itself amply demonstrate that the suit amount is indeed outstanding against the defendant and that the defendant has been over the years paying interest to the plaintiff on the principal sum @ 6% per annum and deducting tax at source on such payments. Copies of the balance sheets and other documents leave no doubt about the existence of the liability, which fact is acknowledged even by the defendant. What is, all the same, argued in support of the application for grant of leave to defend the suit is that the payment of the suit amount to the plaintiff is in terms of an oral arrangement arrived at between the parties contingent upon vacation of a certain pr...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Om Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT608; 2005(81)DRJ422
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2000, in Sessions Case No. 85/99, arising out of FIR No. 478/1997, Police Station Vivek Vihar, under Section 302/34 IPC, whereby the learned Judge has held the appellant-Hari Om guilty for the offence of murder of Premwati, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge vide order dated 24th July, 2000, has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a find of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for two years.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been set out in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :'The facts that borne out of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short the Code), are hat on 12.11.1997, Smt. Premwati was taken to SDN hospital, Shahdara by her daughter's son, namely, Raj Kumar. He got her admitted there in the hospital. There were fire arm entry wound and ex...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Surender Patrick Lall and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi379; 118(2005)DLT647; 2005(81)DRJ574
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners pray for issuance of a certificate of probate/letters of administration with will annexed. Petitioners are the sons born to late Mr. S.M. Lal from his first wife. Objectors are Ms. Beena Lall and Ms. Vandana @ Meenu, the second wife and the adopted daughter respectively of the deceased.2. Dispute is predicated on the will propounded by the petitioners, being the will dated 29.10.1997 purported to be executed by the deceased. Date of death of the deceased is 5 days later i.e. 3.11.1997.3. According to the petitioners, 3 children were born to the deceased from the first marriage being the petitioners and Mrs. Shobha Kishore. No child was born from the second marriage to Ms. Beena Lall. According to the petitioner, house No. WZ-A/113-114, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar was purchased by the deceased, Benami, in the name of his second wife Ms. Beena Lal. It is stated that property at 58, Bhargava Lane, Civil Line, Delhi also belonged to the deceased. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Rupali and anr. Vs. Rajesh Grover and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT523; II(2005)DMC531
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The plaintiffs had in this suit made an application for the grant of interim maintenance. By an order dated 11th July, 2001, this court had, with the consent of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to plaintiff No. 1. That order did not make any provision for plaintiff No. 2 who happens to be the mother of plaintiff No. 1. is No. 13002/2000 filed by the mother seeking a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance for plaintiff No. 2 was heard and disposed of by this court in terms of separate order dated 19th December, 2001. This court had, looking to the averments made by the parties in their respective pleadings and the submissions made in support thereof, held that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of the filing of the application towards maintenance of plaintiff No. 2 would suffice. The plaintiff wife was not satisfied with the said order and challenged the same in FAO (OS) 34/2002 before a Division Bench of this court. By an agreed orde...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Engineering and Industries Limited Vs. Container Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC352; 119(2005)DLT81; 2005(81)DRJ317
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In the world of commerce, a contracting party often insists on the furnishing of a bank guarantee to ensure due and proper discharge of the contractual obligations cast upon the other party. Such guarantees when furnished may be conditional or otherwise but are more often than not inviolable at the instance of the party to whom the same have been furnished. Should the contract run into rough waters and the beneficiary of the guarantee decides to invoke the guarantee as it would invariably do, the party that has furnished the guarantee often rushes to knock at the doors of the court for an injunction restraining such encashment. The principles that would govern the grant or refusal of an injunction in such situations have been authoritatively settled by a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court. Their lordships have, in these pronouncements broadly speaking, identified two situations in which the court may step in to prevent encashment of the guarantees. These t...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shivraj Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT470; 2005(81)DRJ140
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. CM No. 2520/2004 stands disposed of. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in CWP No. 488/95 dated 7.11.2003 giving a specific site for allotment at Alaknanda to the writ petitioners and the same is challenged by the Delhi Development Authority on the ground that the DDA is required to allot a plot only in a zone wherein a person is operating petrol pump in case of resitement and that too by a draw of lots. It is submitted that since in the instant case the writ petitioners were operating in a different zone, namely, north west zone, they were entitled to get a petrol pump site only in north west zone. It is required to be noted that this is a policy which came into force in the year 1995.2. So far as the present case is concerned, it is a case of 1986. In view of the fact that a flyover was constructed the writ petitioners were required to be shifted. It is not anybody's case that the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sem Tian Exports and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT500; 2005(81)DRJ130
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this suit for ejectment and mean profits, the plaintiff has made an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for a decree in its favor on the admissions of the defendant. The facts leading to the institution of the suit and the application filed by the plaintiff may be set out thus:-2. In terms of lease agreement dated 28th May, 1999 executed between the parties, the plaintiff company let out the suit premises comprising basement, ground floor and mezzanine floor of a commercial building situate in the Masjid Moth area of New Delhi.The lease deed purported to create a lease initially for a period of three years commencing from 1st June, 1999 and gave to the lessee the option of renewal for two further terms of three years each subject to its fulfilling the terms stipulated for such renewals. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant lessee did not exercise the option of renewal of the lease inasmuch as the lessee did not comply with the conditions stipulated ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »