Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Bhupinder Pal Singh Puri Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. SDE (R) III/38-40/93 dated 31-3-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) on the allegations contained in Show-Cause Notice (SCN) No. 1. A further penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for the contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Act on the allegations contained in SCN II. The appellant was also served with another Show-Cause Notice, viz., SCN III under which he was charged for contravention of the provisions of section 16 but he was exonerated of the charge. 2. Shri Mittal, the learned counsel for the appellant, pleaded, at the outset, for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit on the ground that the impugned order is ex facie untenable. He elaborated that as stated by the learned Adjudicating Officer himself the allegation of contravention hinged on the ...

Rajinder Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT682

D.K. Jain, J. (1) In these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the issues involved and the prayers are common and as such are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) The petitioners, who claim themselves to be traders and commission agents have filed these writ petitions assailing Notification No. F. 1 (1) / 81-DAM, dated 10/ 12 November, 1993, issued by the Government of Nct of Delhi (Development Department), Directorate of Agricultural Marketing, Delhi, rescinding its earlier Notification No. F.I/7/81-DAM, dated 6 October, 1993, whereunder the petitioners were nominated as non-official members of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (for short the Board) under Section 5(l)(b) of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for a period of three years. The effect of the impugned notification was that the petitioners stood removed from the membership of the Board with immediate effect. (3) Initially ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sayaji Iron Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT268TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue for our consideration is whether mouting on which Concrete Mixer machines are fixed, are trailers for the purpose of Item No. 34 of the old Central Excise Tariff. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Baroda has observed that goods in question were classifiable under Item No. 34 and not under Item 68 of the Tariff. He had ruled in his order that lower portion (base portion) was not considered to be Trailers by the assessee only on the ground that it did not require registration under the Motor Vehicle Act. He observed that requirement of Motor Vehicle Act had no relevance to the dispute before him. On the analogy that Trollys used for carrying mobile compressors (under carriage) were classifiable under Item 34, he decided the classification under Item No. 34 as against earlier classification under Item No. 68. On appeal, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay allowed the appeal of the respondents before us M/s. Sayaji Iron Works (...

Saru Smelting (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT291TriDel

1. The appellant, a manufacturer of various excisable products of base metals and availing of Modvat benefit had received back from some of their customers certain goods supplied by them which were found to be defective by such customers. They took such returned goods in their manufacturing process by melting for the manufacture of their final products. They took Modvat credit in respect of such returned products.The same was disallowed by the Assistant Collector on the ground that their declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules showed their inputs which did not include items in question which were their final products. The order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) the present appeal has been filed.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that their case for Modvat benefit is covered by the Tribunal decision in Alcobex Metals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1993 (68) E.L.T. 146. In that case also the manufacturer received back his final product fr...

Dilip Nagori Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT756TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed against Order-in-Original dated 28-2-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore whereby he had confiscated 2.335 M.T. of M.S. Bars removed from the factory of the appellants M/s. Ram Darshan Rolling Mills without payment of duty imposing a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on them and confiscating the truck in which the subject goods had been removed from the factory without payment of duty giving the option of redemption of the vehicle on a fine of Rs. 35,000/- and of the M.S. Bars on a fine of Rs. 6000/-.2. The appeal by the first appellant M/s. Ram Darshan Rolling Mills is directed against the confiscation of the aforesaid quantity of M.S.Bars and the fine in lieu of confiscation fixed in respect thereof and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/-. The second appeal is by Shri Dilip Nagori, the owner of the truck which was confiscated and in respect of which fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 35,000/- had been ordered.3. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, le...

Evershine Electrical Works (i) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT283TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 23-2-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi relating to denial to Modvat Rs, 16,875.00 to the appellants, herein, by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD HI, New Delhi on the ground that the invoice from the manufacturer's depot under which the appellants had received their input, is not a valid duty-paying document for the purpose of Rule 57G for taking Modvat credit as it is not in accordance with the terms of Notification No. 21/94. The Commissioner (Appeals) has up-held the order of the Assistant Commissioner.2. On hearing Sh. P.M. Pawar, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Sh.Y.R. Kilania, ld. D.R., it is seen that the controversy is set at rest by the Circular No. 204/38/96-CX, dated 26-4-1996 issued by the C.B.E.C. The Board has issued the circular in response to representation from the Trade that invoice issued under Rule 57G against gate passes, are not being recognised as duty-paying ...

Kores (India) Limited Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT675TriDel

1. The appellants herein filed classification list No. 14/88 in this respect of the product 'Offset plate of papers' and classified the same under Heading 4809.90 and claimed the benefit of Notification 44/86 dated 10-2-1986 as amended. The benefit of the Notification was denied by both authorities below on the ground that the item was coated paper excluded from the benefit of the Notification in terms of clause (iii) thereto. Though arguments had been advanced initially before us regarding classification of the item under Heading 48.16, the learned counsel for the appellants subsequently clarifies that he has no objection to classification by the authorities below i.e., Heading 4809.90, in view of the size of paper exceeding 36 cms on one side.Therefore the issue before us only relates to the availability of the benefit of Notification.2. We have perused the records and carefully perused the Notification which exempts paper and boards falling under chapter 48 of the Schedule to the C...

Dr. V.N. Gupta Charitable Trust and Another Vs. Delhi Development Auth ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)114PLR65

ORDER1. The coin which you drop intothe withered hand stretching towards you is the only golden chain which binds your rich heart to the loving heart of God.'(Kahlil Gibran -- Secret of Heart)Thus Realizing the importance of charityand fully conscious of the fact that one of the ways to seek blessings of God Almighty is to do charity, the petitioner thought of establishing a charitable hospital.2. With the said end in view the petitioner No. 2 moved the application for allotment of land before the respondent No. 1 (vide application dated July 15,1985). Later on the case of the petitioners was also sponsored as per the requirement for the allotment of land by respondent No. 3 i.e. the Directorate of Health i Services, Delhi Administration through their letter dated February 26,1988. The petitioners were allotted a plot of half an acre of land vide letter dated March 23, 1989 (Annexure N) as per their request made vide letter dated January 13,1989 (vide Annexure-M) at the rate of Rs. 19 ...

Rajasthan Prem Krishna Transport Co. Vs. Commissioner, Workmen's Compe ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2362]; (1997)ILLJ790Del

ORDER1. On January 14, 1992 the petitioner took out insurance for its Vehicle No. HR-29A-8336. Copy of Insurance policy is Annexure P-2. The said vehicle met with an accident at Hansi, Dist. Hissar, Haryana on January 25, 1992. A claim petition was preferred by the driver of the vehicle for the injury alleged to have been sustained by him in the said accident, namely loss of both the legs. This claim petition was preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar. Respondent No. 3 also filed separate claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, 30 Hazari, Delhi on March 11, 1992 impleading the petitioner herein, as the respondent. Due intimation was sent by the Petitioner to the Insurance Company about the filing of the Petitions. The petitioner could not put in appearance before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, since Summons were misplaced. On July 9, 1993, an ex-parte award (Annex...

Dutt Enterprises Ltd. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)393; 64(1996)DLT815

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) On April 8,1996, after the complaint had been received by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was adjourned to December 9,1996 for preliminary evidence of the complainant. Being aggrieved by this order adjourning the case by eight months only for recording the preliminary evidence, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Petitioner wants guidelines to be issued to the Trial Courts trying such type of complaints. I have been informed that in cases filed under Section 138 of he Negotiable Instruments Act, the Metropolitan Magistrates are giving adjournment of 7/8 months for recording of pre-summoning evidence. (2) By Act 66 of 1988 Chapter Xvh comprising Sections 138 to 142 was inserted in the Negotiable Instruments Act with effect from 1st April, 1989. The object of inserting Chapter Xvii in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was that where any cheque drawn by a person for the discharge of any liability was returned by the bank unpaid for the reason of...