Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Rajinder Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)42; 63(1996)DLT721

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, , 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Fir No. 43/87, Police Station Chandni Mahal, Delhi by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 38/87 sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh and in default to under go Ri for a further period of two yea Rs. (2) The prosecution case, as revealed from the record, is that on the basis of the secret information received on 3.3.1987 that one person having raxine bag of cream colour proceeding towards Sita Ram Bazar via Asaf Ali Road is in possession of opium, whereupon watch was arranged behind Mother Dairy Booth; that at about 2.30 p.m., a person came from Asaf Ali Road side having cream colour raxine bag; that the informer identified and pointed out that person possessing the contraband was intercepted and was informed ...

G.M. Laminates Private Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT197TriDel

1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order dated 20th April, 1995 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh. The learned Collector, in his order, had held : "23. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 confirm the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 66,00,106/- as BED and Rs. 6,47,459/- as SED against the notice under Section 11A of CESA, 1944 by invoking the extended period under proviso to the aforesaid Section 24.1 also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the notice under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 25. This order is issued without, prejudice to any other action for which the notice may be liable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or any other law for the time being in force." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Decorative Laminated Sheets. Intelligence was collected by the Central Excise authorities that the appellants were evading pa...

Janki Solvent Extraction (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT124TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) Allahabad dated 30-11-1994 confirming the order-in-original of Assistant Collector dated 17-4-1984. The question raised is whether rice bran oil is a vegetable oil for purposes of the Vegetable Oils Cess Act, 1983.2. By show cause notice dated 13-3-1987 the appellants before us were called upon to show cause as to why a duty of Rs. 2,46,610.50/- should not be demanded from them towards cess on rice bran oil produced by them. Appellants contested the demand before the Assistant Collector.The Assistant Collector rejected their contentions and confirmed the demand. In the impugned order, Collector (Appeals) concurred with the findings of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal.3. Appellants contend that rice bran oil is not a vegetable oil assessable to cess under the Vegetable Oils Cess Act, 1983 for the following reasons : (a) Rice bran oil is extracted by solvent extraction process from rice...

Flex Engg. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT660TriDel

1. This is a reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 arising from the order of this Tribunal dated 24-11-1995. The question arose in this case whether flexible plastic films/ poly paper can be regarded as an input for the manufacture of filling and sealing machines (F.S. machines) and also whether the cost of flexible plastic films/poly paper was eligible for Modvat credit as an input. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Collector v. Rash Extrusions Technic reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 367 and other decisions and on an analysis of the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal held that the materials used for testing fully finished machines cannot be considered as materials used "in or in relation to" the manufacture of the finished product. The Tribunal also held that from a perusal of the Scheme which excludes manufacture from the coverage of inputs for the purposes of credit of duty, the order passed ...

Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT493TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd., the issue for our consideration is the applicability of exemption Notification No. 82/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972 to the electric motors which are marked with voltage 380 and 385. In the applicable Notification the word are only electric motors designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts. The Department had held that the goods under consideration were not eligible for the benefit of said notification.3. On behalf of the respondent/Revenue, Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR submitted that the electric motors in question had been designed for use in circuits at a pressure of 380 and 385 volts. As the exemption was only to those motors, which were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts, the benefit of exemption under Notification No.82/72-C.E. had been rightly denied to them. He referred to the plea of the appellants that ISI specifications provided for tolerance. He contended that this tolerance was ...

Chelur Engineering Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT485TriDel

1. The classification of shelving panels and partition plates manufactured and used by the appellants for assembly racks or storage system - whether under Tariff Item 40 of the Tariff for the period 28-2-1986, and thereafter under Heading 94.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as contended by the Department or T.I. 68 upto 28-2-1986, and thereafter under Heading 7308.90 as claimed by the appellants arises for determination in the above appeal. None has appeared for the appellants in spite of notice of hearing; hence we heard the ld. JDR Shri J.M. Sharma and perused the records. We find that as rightly pointed out by the ld. JDR the classification of the very same item has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. New Chelur Manufacturers reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 143 in which the Tribunal has upheld classification of steel slotted panels, partition plates, etc. as parts of steel furniture under T.I. 40 of the Schedule of the erstwhile Central ...

Baby Shivani Kapoor Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi107; 1996(39)DRJ299; (1996)IILLJ940Del

ORDER1. The present petition is directed against the respondents to declare the petitioner as 'passed' student from VIth Class to VIIth class and for permission to join that class in the Bal Bharti Public School, Sector 14, Rohini, respondent No. 4 herein.2. The petitioner is a student of the said school and appeared in Class VI examinationheld for the session 1995-96. The result of the petitioner and other students was declared on27th March, 1996. The above said result in final grading was based on the performance of the petitioner in Cycle Tests, Half-Yearly and Annual examinations respectively. In the Annual examination her marks in each subject were as follows:S. No. SubjectMaximum MarksMarks Obtained1.English100362.Hindi100453.Maths100294.Science10031.55.S. Studies100246.Sanskrit5025.5The assessment was then made on the basis of over all performance of the petitioner in three examinations and the marks were worked out as follows:SubjectMaximum MarksMarks ObtainedEnglish10036Hindi1...

Ram Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)885; 1997CriLJ372; 63(1996)DLT545; 1996(38)DRJ499

Arun Kumar, J. (1) Ram Singh, appellant, his wife Hemlata along with their two children Lakhan (aged 5 years) and Pramod (aged 2 years) used to reside at house no.C-l/136, Krishna Vihar, Delhi. Ram Singh worked as a tailor. On 20th March, 1987 at about 8:30-9:00 A.M. Hemlata and her two sons named above got seriously burnt. The Police Control Room was informed about this incident. The Police Control Room passed on the information through wireless to police station Sultanpuri where it was recorded in the Daily Diary at no.l2-A (Ex. Public Witness -4/A). At the Police Station the message was passed on to S.I. Sat Prakash who proceeded to the place of occurrence. The information was also received through wireless by Head Constable Rajpal who was on Ambulance Van duty. He reached the spot before S.I. Sat Prakash and removed Hemlata and her two sons Lakhan and Pramod to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. The MLCs of the three injured persons were prepared by Dr. Munish Chand Gupta, ...

K.L. Madhok Vs. Chief General Manager, M.T.N.L. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Dr. K.L. Madhok, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, paid a sum of Rs. 1,219/- to M/s Sterling Computers Ltd., New Delhi, who were official publisher of Delhi Telephone Directory in connection with the publication of an advertisement in the yellow pages part xxxxxxx on 18.9.1992. On 19.3.1993 the complainant received intimation from M/s. Sterling Computers Limited that in consequence of the order of the Supreme Court, they were no longer official publishers of the telephone directory and the yellow pages thereof for the city of Delhi. It was further intimated that in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court the money collected by them would be transferred to MTNL, alongwith the advertising details to be passed on the new official publisher. The complainant was requested to get in touch with MTNL in future. The complainant filed a complaint before District Forum-I against Manager, Telepho...

M/S. Divya Land Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. Kulbhushan Suri

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent filed a complaint before District Forum-II against the appellant. His grievance was that he had paid Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party by cheque dated 16.10.90 under an agreement to purchase 1000 sq. yards of orchard land and the opposite party had failed to develop the land and handed over the same to the complainant. The opposite party was proceeded ex-parte and the complaint was allowed by the District Forum by ex-parte order dated 6.1.95. It appears that the complainant took out execution. Notice was issued u/Section 27 which was served on one of the Directors of the appellant on 2.11.95. An application for setting-aside the ex-parte order was moved by the appellant before the District Forum on 3.11.95. By a later order dated 10.11.95 the District Forum directed certain corrections to be made in the main order and on the same day dismissed the application for settingaside the ex-parte order...