Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)109; 74(1998)DLT579; 1998(46)DRJ756
ORDERJ.B.Goel, J.1. By this petition the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for seeking permission to go abroad.2. The petitioner along with others is facing trial on charges under Section 420/120B IPC. He was arrested on 2.5.1996 and was admitted to bail vide order dated 7.11.1996 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Criminal Appeal No. 1912/96 (S.L.P. Crl. No. 3377/96)]. The bail was granted inter alias subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country. 3. This condition was, however, modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 588 of 1998 in Crl. A. No. 1912/96 vide order dated January 29, 1998 to the effect that the petitioner will not leave the country unless permitted by the court on such conditions as the court may impose in that event when his application for permission to go abroad inter alias on the ground of treatment of his ailments was also declined on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)91; 74(1998)DLT810; 1998(47)DRJ130
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in the writ petition the charge-sheet issued by the Commanding Officer on the 27th of August, 1997 and also the convening of the Court Martial on the basis of the charge-sheet.2. The petitioner was working in the Indian Naval Ship Circars Additional for Material Organisation as Controller of Material Planning in Visakhapatnam between 1993 and the 2nd of August, 1994. From the third of August, 1998, he had been working in Delhi. A draft charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and he filed his objections and later on final charge-sheet was issued on the 27th of August, 1997. The petitioner, on the 2nd of September, 1997, made a representation to the Directorate of Personnel Services (Discipline and Vigilance Section) stating that the department cannot issue any charge-sheet against him. There was no conspiracy and the convening of the court martial was barred under Section 79 of the Navy Act, 1957.3. On the 29th of September,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 74(1998)DLT620; 1998(46)DRJ504
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment dated February 12, 1996 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Delhi by which the Order of the Trial Judge dated April 20, 1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to decide the case including the plea of bar to the suit under Section 56 of the Wakf Act. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant with a prayer that the defendant/appellant be restrained from taking forcible possession of the properly as referred to in the plaint. The Trial Judge framed the preliminary issue relating to the bar of jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Wakf Act 'Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the present form ?'2. Section 56 of the Wakf Act reads as under :-'Section 56 :- No suit shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any act purporting to be done it in pursuance of this Act or o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(80)LC109Tri(Delhi)
1. Short question involved in the present appeal is that even though the invoice had mentioned regarding import of PCBs, the appellants had not declared them in the Bill of Entry. It is only on examination of the goods that the appellants modified the Bill of Entry by declaring PCBs. It is also admitted to the appellants that PCBs required an ITC licence but learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that they had immediately produced the licence and the authorities had also accepted it. He, therefore, submits that in view of the licence having been produced the appellants' goods could not be confiscated nor any personal penalty be imposed. On the other hand, learned SDR, Shri A.K.Agarwal has pointed out that but for the examination of the goods and but for being pointed out by Customs Officers the declaration of PCBs would have escaped. It is, therefore, a case of misdeclaration. He submits that confiscation of goods had been made not under Section 111 (d) but under Section 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT196TriDel
1. The appellants have two factories one at Pune and the other at Chembur, Bombay. At the factory at Pune, the appellants inter alia manufacture mango pulp, orange pulp and mango slices and syrup. These goods are packed in unit containers 3 Kgs., 5 Kgs. etc. 1.2 Of the total production, a part of it is cleared to the factory at Chembur by the appellants, where it is processed to make various drinks marketed as "Mangola". The remaining part is sold at the factory at Pune to outsiders.2.1 Question involved herein is whether the appellants' goods transferred by them to their factory at Chembur are to be classified under Tariff sub-heading 2001.90, as contended by the appellants or under sub-heading 2001.10, as contended by the Revenue. In order to understand the controversy at hand we reproduce the relevant sub-headings :---------------------------------------------------------------------------Heading Sub-heading Description of goods. Rate ofNo. No. duty---------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT229TriDel
1. All the captioned 72 Appeals were taken up together as the issue involved in all these Appeals was the same, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The short point for determination in these appeals is whether the Asst. Commissioner could adjudicate the cases where the amount of duty was more than Rs. 50,000/-. The facts leading to the present cases are that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that in pursuance of the Circular No. 3/92-CX. 6, dated 14-5-1992 and Circular No. 299/15/97-CX., dated 27-2-1997, the powers of the Assistant Commissioners were administratively restricted. Against this finding, the Revenue has filed the captioned appeals.3. We have heard Shri P.K. Jain, the ld. SDR for Revenue and S/Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ravindran, K.K. Anand, Rajesh Kumar and Ms. Smriti Mishra, ld. Advocates for the Respondents.4. We note that powers of adjudication including confiscation and imposition of penalty are governed by Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT477TriDel
1. The appeal for the assessees was argued by Shri R.K. Agarwal, Consultant and Shri Y.R. Kilania appeared for the Revenue.2. In this case credit taken on 4 invoices issued by a registered dealer was disallowed on two grounds. The first was whereas the duplicate for transporter copy was required to be pink, the invoice was printed in pink ink. The 2nd observation that the registered person issuing the invoices had not given therein the details of the entries made in his R.G. 23D register. The claim of the appellants is that subsequently the details about the R.G. 23D entry was incorporated.Citing the Amal Rasayana case reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal), it was claimed that remedial defect had been remedied. As regards the defect in colour scheme, it was submitted that where the term "duplicate for transporter" was printed in pink, the invoice would be acceptable. Citing other case law, it was claimed that the substantive benefit could not be denied because of procedural laps...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(103)ELT490TriDel
1.2 Respondents herein imported "Integrated Powder Diffractometer Basic Operational System." The said apparatus was based on X-ray used for examination of the crystalline structure as well as the chemical composition of materials. It is covered by Tariff Heading 90.22. The original authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 121 /92-Cus.in respect of auxiliary duty leviable on the said apparatus. The respondents, however, succeeded before the lower appellate authority which has held as follows : "There is no necessity to restrict the benefit of notification to instruments falling under a particular Tarif Heading, when the notification and Table attached thereto allows instrun tents, falling under Chapter 90 of the Indian Customs Tariff. In determinin the scope and coverage of a notification, no doubt interpretation should be made on actual words used therein, but there is no necessity to unnecessarily restrict the scope of notification by introducing extraneous considerations. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC417
1.2 The appellants herein imported four motors described as geared motors and sought clearance under OGL Appendix 6, List 8, S. No. 659 of April-March 1990-93 Policy which reads as under :- 1.3 The goods were declared in the Bill of Entry that these motors are for their Shrink Wrap Machine. They also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.2.1 Revenue, however, felt that the imported motors were not internally geared motors as claimed by the appellants but were squirrel cage type of motors, nor were they claimed to be explosion proof type. The reason for considering the imported motors as squirrel type was based on expert opinion which pointed out that in an internally geared motors housing of the motor unit and the geared unit is one and the same, whereas in the imported motors housings are separate. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to the appellants on 8-8-1991 which resulted in the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(47)DRJ688
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Station Master for mini train vide Office Order No. 38 dated the 25th of February, 1992, The order reads as under:-'Shri Khazan Chand who is presently performing the duties of Station Master is appointed to the post of Station Master in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-156()-EB-40-2040 w.e.f. 10th Jan., 1992. Shri Khazan Chand will undergo the requisite training of Station Master being provided by Northern Railway.Shri Khazan Chand will be on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of appointment.'2. On the 8th of January, 1994, the petitioner was reverted to his original post. The order reads as under:-'Shri Khazan Chand who was appointed as Station Master w.e.f. 10.1.92 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and put on probation for a period of two years vide Office Order No. 38 dated 25th February, 1992, is hereby reverted to his original post of Peon with immediate effect.'3. The third respondent gave a notice on the...
Tag this Judgment!