Delhi Court July 1994 Judgments

Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT671TriDel

1. These are three appeals. Two Appeals bearing No. E/2005/88-C and E/2866/89-C have been filed by M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. whereas the third appeal bearing No. E/3964/88-C is by the Revenue against that part of the order-in-original No. AMP-570/BIII-370/88 (which is the subject matter of Appeal No. E / 2866/89-C filed by the assessee also) whereby the Collector (Appeals) has directed that amounts of duty demanded will be worked out again limited period of six months only.2. Appearing on behalf of the assessee M/s. Khandelwal Lab. (P) Ltd. Ms. P.P. Bhandari, Ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have wrongly denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986. Elaborating on her submission she submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pharmaceutical products. It inter alia manufactures certain products which are sold under the trade name "Vermisole" which contains "Levamisole Hydrochloride". The said products are ...

Collectors Central Excise Vs. Dynamo Dilectrics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT937TriDel

1. Being aggrieved with the classification of the subject goods, namely, Tapes and Sleeves made from Glass Fibre Yarn under Tariff Item 22F by the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. When the case was taken up, Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR, appeared on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.However, they have made a request for adjournment in their letter dtd.10-7-1994 stating "that their Sr. Officer looking after the excise matter is going out of station for his family religious matter as per his pre-arranged programme his services are not available to the respondents before the Bench". After considering this request the Bench rejected the same and proceeded to decide the case on merits in the absence of the respondents. Accordingly, we heard Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR, on behalf of the appellants and perused the record.3. Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the period involved in the present appeal relates to 12-7-19...

Twenty First Century Printers Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC117Tri(Delhi)

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 25-10-91 of the Collector of Customs (Judicial), Bombay upholding confiscation of Web-fed High Speed Letter and Off-Set Rotary Printing Machine having out-put of more than 35,000 composite impressions or copies per hour with DCP Platen under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 60,00,000/- and determination the classification of the machine under Heading 84.79 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and denial of benefit of Notification No. 114/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellants under Section 112, the appellants have referred the above appeal.2. The appellants hold a registration dated November 30, 1987 from the Ministry of Industry, Deptt. of Industrial Development. The said Registration Certificate specifies the article of manufacture as 'Multi-Colour Off-Set Printing and Automatic Punching' and the annual capacity ...

Ram Nath Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1223; 1994(31)DRJ238

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two criminal appeals being Cr.A.No-280 and 281 of 1979-These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Delhi, dated November 15,1979 whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 on each count concurrently. (2) Prosecution set up the following case against the appellant: (3) In the year 1977, both the appellants, Azad Singh and Ram Nath, were posted as Sub-Inspectors at P.S. Roshanara Road, New Delhi. On September 19,1977 Subash Chand lodged a complaint with P.S.Roshanara Road about the theft of his three wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DLR 1873. Consequently a case under Section 379 Indian Penal Code was registered vide Fir No.500 of 1977 and investigation was entrusted to the appell...

Anoop Singh Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1001; 1994CriLJ3442; 1994(3)Crimes212; 55(1994)DLT637; 1994(30)DRJ291

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 20th February, 1991 given in Sessions Case no. 15 of 1989.(2) The appellant has been convicted under Section 451 Indian Penal Code . and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 ye.ars and to pay a fine of Rs.5()().00 , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for three months, under Section 392, Indian Penal Code . and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine ofRs.300).00 , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for two months, and under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 7 years. In addition to this, the accused/ appellant has been further convicted under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act and awarded a sentence to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300 / -, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for two months. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.(3) Brief fac...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ambitious Enterprises anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT425

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27/05/1994.(2) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-Delhi Development Authority, the appellant before us, issued an advertisement on February 8,1976 with a view to providing an opportunity to industrialists to shift their industries functioning in the non-conforming areas or the areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes to conforming areas. The advertisement declared that it was the last opportunity for the industrialists to apply for land in the conforming areas which had been developed by the Delhi Developmnent Authority in different localities of Delhi according to the provisions of the Master Plan. The applicants were advised to apply in the prescribed form.Pursuant to the advertisement, about 15,000 applicants applied for the plots. As the number of applications were large, it was decided by the appellant that an applicant should deposit 30% ...

Pratap Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT451; 1994(30)DRJ425

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to deliver to' him possession of plot No. AW-415 measuring 55 sq. mtrs situate at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, G.T. Karnal Road, Samai Pur Badli, Delhi.(3) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under : The first respondent which is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, invited applications for allotment of plots of land in the proposed Transport Nagar which was to be developed at Wazirabad, Delhi. Pursuant thereto, in the year 1976, the petitioner applied for allotment of a plot of 55 sq.metres. However, the project was shelved and the applicants were allowed to withdraw the amounts deposited for the purposes of registering their applications. These facts emerge from the notice dated February 4,1984 which was received by the petitioner from the first respondent (Annexure D to the writ petition). This very notice also states that it was decided to consider...

Anil Sondhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased Shop No. 3 Pocket C Vasant Kunj in an auction in Sept. 86. A newspaper vendor platform was also auctioned by the DDA and it was purchased by Mr. Hansraj Bhutani. The platform is situated in front of the shop of the complainant. In 1990, it is alleged, that the owner of the platform installed shutters in the front and back of the platform and laid ceiling thereon; thus converted the platform into a shop. The alleged construction, it is pleaded, has obstructed the view of the complainants shop, on account of which he has suffered loss of Rs. 5 lacs. It is further pleaded that the DDA did not take any action against the said shopkeeper. Consequently he filed the present complaint for recovery of damages and for direction that the construction be demolished by DDA. 2. The complaint is contested by the respondent. They have admitted that shop No. 3 was purchased by the complainant, that the platform was situated...

Panchmukhi Engg. Works Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT709TriDel

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of the amounts detailed below, arise out of the order dated 1-8-1993 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad --------------------------------------------------------------------------Stay Appl. Appeal Date of Adj. Duty Penalty PeriodNumber No. order confirmed-------------------------------------------------------------------------1384/93 2456/93 26-3-1993 Rs. 2,58,472/- Rs. 20,000/- March 92 Aug. 921434/93 2535/93 26-3-1993 Rs. 2,45,514/- Rs. 20,000/- March 92 Aug. 921435/93 2536/93 23-4-1993 Rs. 9,725.99 Nil Jan. 92 Dec. 921436/93 2537/93 26-3-1993 Rs. 42,376/- Rs. 5,000/- Sept. 92 Jan. 931437/93 2538/93 26-3-1993 Rs. 39,990.56 Rs. 5,000/- March 92 Aug. 921438/93 2539/93 23-4-1993 Rs. 11,863.1 Nil Jan. 92 Dec. 921439/93 2540/93 26-3-1993 Rs. 1,64,647.18 Rs. 15,000/- March 92 Aug. 92 2. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri V.C. Bhartiya, learned DR for the Revenue.3. The...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Sansar Chand Kapur and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)834; AIR1994Delhi359; 56(1994)DLT555; 1994(30)DRJ270; 1994RLR433

ORDER1. Delay, it is said, defeats justice. Surely, I have noticed something else too. It sometimes wears down even the Advocates with the result that when exposition is expected at some length, the arguments end in a whimper. I could easily discern such weariness in this appeal of 1975. The fire was amiss and so also a lawyers's most effective weapon, the precedent.2. The question raised is as old as the hills. However, let us first hurry through the facts. The suit was dismissed in default. The very next day of that order an application was moved for its restoration and the plea taken was that whereas the counsel was busy in the High Court the trial Judge refused to adjourn the case on the request of his clerk on the ground that he had no authority to appear. The trial Judge recorded the evidence and held that the clerk had not put in appearance and as far as the counsel was concerned his absence constituted no 'sufficient cause'. The application thus invited the order of dismissal. ...