Delhi Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. P.Ltd Vs. S.P. Singh, Cce, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The Misc. Applications stands filed is for recalling of order No.765-767/2011-EX, dtd. 11.08.11 as the same was passed ex-parte after the matter was once passed over at the request of the appellants and subsequently called and decided. The appellants’ grievance is that Sr. Advocate, Shri J.Velapally was to cause appearance. As the Sr. Advocate was busy before the Honble Supreme Court, the request was made to passover the matter and matter was again called around 12.40 p.m. when the Sr. Advocate was on his way to Tribunal to attend the same. In view of the above, we recall the final order referred (supra) and proceed to decide the issue. 2. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that vide impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals), demand of duty of Rs.85,73,522/- was confirmed against M/s Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co.P.Ltd. along with imposition of penalty of identical amount in terms of the provisions of Section 11AC. Tribunal ...
M/S. Diamond Cements Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker. The demand in the present case relates to fabrication of structurals and other items of steel falling under Chapter 73 for the period 1988-89 to 1991-92. According to the Revenue, various items copper inserts, insert plats, copper support, grills, cross bracings, bucket, trailer, gantry etc. were manufactured by the appellant in their factory and used in their units at Narsingarh and Amlai. By holding that the process of drilling, cutting, welding etc. amounts to manufacture and by rejecting the appellants stand that the goods were manufactured by the contractor and by denying them the benefit of various notifications as claimed by the appellant, authorities below have confirmed demand of duty of Rs.5,49,322/- along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. 2. We have heard Shri Amit Jain, ld counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.R.Meena, ld. AR ap...
M/S Swaraj Engines Ltd Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of engines supplied to M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd., Mohali. As per the contract entered into by them, the payment for such engines is to be made by M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd. ‘BY CHEQUE 90 DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF MATERIAL.” 2. The issue involved is that as the payment is being received by the appellants after a period of 90 days, the agreed upon price between the appellants and their buyers is inclusive of interest amount. As such interest about the said period of 90 days is required to be deducted from the assessable value. The appellants have paid duty on the assessable value, which is lower than the total price charged by them from M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd. Scrutiny of the invoices revealed that both the prices stands reflected in the invoices issued by them, though there is no separate mention of the interest amount. 3. Commissioner...
Eastron Enterprises Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL)As identical controversy arises for consideration in these three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Eastron Overseas Inc., Mataji Enterprises and M/s. Celestial Enterprises by bill of entries dated 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011 and 7.12.2011 had asked the Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi to permit and allow import into India of the Data Graphic Display Tubes, which have been imported from Malaysia. It was claimed that these goods could be imported under the open general license.3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court alleging that the respondent custom authority is delaying the release of the said consignment by taking the plea that the goods imported were old and used and therefore, they are “Electronic Waste”. The petitioners have controverted the said plea and have submitted report of a chartered engineer in support. It is their contention that Data Graphic Display Tubes are...
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Ajay Ku ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1. This is a reference case under Section 21 (5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) in respect of respondent who is a Chartered Accountant practicing in Delhi. Inquiry was held by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as „the petitioner‟) on the allegations contained in a complaint submitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The Disciplinary Committee found that the allegations were substantiated and proved. This report was considered by the Council of the petitioner in its 287th Meeting of the Council held on 17th to 19th April, 2009. The Council considered the report of the Disciplinary Committee along with the written representation dated 8th April, 2009 received from the complainant as well as written representation dated 13th April, 2009 received from the respondent. After considering the report, the Council decided to ac...
Cit Vs. Machino Plastic Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL) 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) pertains to assessment year 2001-02. After hearing counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law : “Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2. The assessee is a company and has made investment in equity shares, preference shares and bonds as per details given below : S. No.ParticularsYear of InvestmentAmount InvestedSource of FundDividend Received during the Fin. Year 2000-01Interest Received during the Fin. Year 2000-011.Equity Share capital of Caparo Maruti Limited1994-951,25,00,000Retained earning of the Business18,75,000--2.Equity Share capital of Machino Basell India Limited.1997-984,00,00,000Issue of Share Capital in consideration of Re-arrangement of business.----3.Preference Share capital of Machino Basell India Limite...
Vinod Kumar, Ex. Constable Vs. the Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
V.K. JAIN, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 02.06.2010 and 21.10.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby OA No. 401/2009 and RA No. 272/2010 respectively were dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the OA can be summarized as follows:-Three Constables of Delhi Police, namely, Ravinder Kumar, Gajraj and Kanhaiya Lal, who were posted in Rashtrapati Bhawan were transferred from there prior to June, 2006. W/ASI Bimlesh Varun, while making entries in the check sheet about salaries paid to the lower subordinates for the months of June and July, 2006, noticed that the salary bills of the above-referred three constables had been prepared for the months of June and July, 2006, despite the fact that they had already been transferred from Rashtrapati Bhawan and Last Pay Certificates had also been issued to them. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by Assistant Commissioner of Police, who reported that the petit...
State Vs. Praveen Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 2626/2012 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl. M.A. 2625/2012 (Delay) For the reasons explained, delay of 110 days stands condoned. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl. Rev. P. 107/2012 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner/State has assailed the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2011, whereby ld. Special Judge, NDPS has set aside the judgment dated 21.12.2010 and order on sentence dated 24.12.2010 passed by ld. ACMM-II, New Delhi District and respondent has been acquitted from all the charges.2. Mr.Navin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that ld. Special Judge has got swayed away by the fact that according to the report of public analyst that the fat content was found to be 43.69% and according to CFL Report the same was found to be 45.26% and such minor variation ought not to have been fatal to the prosecution.3. It is further submitted by the ld. APP that non-joinin...
Management of M/S D.T.C. Vs. Ramesh Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 10.01.2011 passed by learned Labour Court whereby reinstatement of the respondent/workman in service without back wages has been ordered after coming to the conclusion that the termination of his services was unjustified. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted on 28.4.1995 while in the employment of the Delhi Transport Corporation(‘the management’ in short) as a conductor on the allegation that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for 153 days from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995. The respondent-workman had refuted that allegation in his reply to the charge-sheet. In his reply, copy of which was produced before me today, the respondent workman had claimed that he had submitted leave applications for the entire period of his alleged unauthorized absence from duty and that he had to take leave because of his own sickness and of his wife as well as his daughter and he had...
Shri S.R. Saini and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL) 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby their Original Application being O.A. No. 2934/2011 was rejected on the ground of limitation.2. The petitioners had initially approached the Tribunal by way of an Original Application being O.A. No.754/2005. The said Original Application had been rejected. However, on the filing of a review application, the same was restored and ultimately it was disposed of by an order dated 01.08.2008. The Tribunal, inter alia, directed as under:-“3. OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the present OA as a representation of the applicants and consider their request to fix their pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 under Rule 7 of the CCS(RP) Rule, 1986, as done in identically situated employees cases, just because the applicants were not applicants there would not amount to depriving him of the equ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »