Delhi Court February 1999 Judgments

Dr. Manoj Gupta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 78(1999)DLT121; 1999(49)DRJ129

N.G. Nandi, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.1998 framing charge against the petitioner along with other accused persons. As far as this petitioner is concerned, the charge framed is for the offence under Section 120-B, IPC. The other accused persons are charged for the offences under Sections 448/452/342/506 and Sections 186/353 read with Section 34, IPC.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired with co-accused to take unlawful possession and as such to trespass in the premises, thereby alleging offence under Section 448, IPC.3. The Trial Court record has been placed for my perusal. The perusal of the same suggests that the complainant, a Security Guard, alleged in his complaint that on 26.4.1995 at about 4.30 p.m. the accused persons trespassed in the premises bearing No. 150, Kapil Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi by breaking the lock of the staircase and entered the first floor of the premises; that the complainant was confi...

Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT509TriDel

1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of Laminated Safety Glass (hereinafter referred to as LSG) falling under GET sub-heading 7004.20.The nominal thickness of LSG is 6.00 mm, while the thickness varies from 5.98 mm to 6.78 mm. Show cause notices were issued demanding duty on the quantity of LSG of nominal thickness 6 mm and 8 mm on the ground that these are of actual thickness of 6.38 mm and 8.38 mm and are, therefore, to be treated as LSG of thickness of 7 mm and 9 mm and the duty has to be computed in terms of Notification No. 68/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 as amended.2. Learned Counsel, Shri R. Nambirajan submits that this very issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Chandra Lakshmi Safety Glass Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, 1997 (93) E.L.T.44 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that according to CBEC Circular No. 13/94 if the range of thickness of Laminated Safety Glass is between 6 mm and 6.8 mm nominal thickness, it has to be taken as 6 mm for the...

Suryanarayan Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT28TriDel

1. The lower authorities have confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1801/- for the period from November 1990 to February 1991 on Nickel perforated rotary screens manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty. These screens are used for printing of textiles and the Department has demanded duty holding them to fall for classification under CET sub-heading 8442.00.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice and hence we have perused the records and the case laws cited by the DR. We find that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay v. New Great Eastern Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 140 and in the case of Victoria Mills Ltd. reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 242, the Tribunal has held that Nickel perforated rotatory screens fall for classification under CET sub-heading 8442.00. Hence following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned order holding that the goods are classifiable under CET sub...

Phoenix Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT1018TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Is whether the Printing Paste made by them is an excisable goods or not chargeable to Central Excise duty.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants manufacture printing paste which was used by them for printing of fabrics captively without payment of duty. The Collector, Central Excise, under the impugned order dated 29-5-1992, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty for the period of six months classifying the product under sub-heading 3204.39 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and holding that the mixing of ingredients brought into existence a product known as printing paste; that printing paste is known differently from the raw materials like urea, emulsifier, water, binder, etc. used in its manufacture; that the process employed is covered by the scope of manufacture under Central Excise law. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Empire Industry -1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.).The...

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT337TriDel

1. These appeals raise common issues : levy of Central Excise Duty on buildings, industrial plants and structurals. The question involved in individual appeals is given hereunder :- 1-2. Appeal Nos. E/1885/91-B1 and E/2691/91-B1 of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. The demand in these appeals relates to erection of coal handling plant. 3-5. Appeal Nos. E/1039 to 1041/90-B1. In these appeals of M/s. R.K. Khade Patil and others duty demand is on construction of new factory building, general stores and sugar godowns. 6-7. Appeal Nos. E/138/90-B1 and E/2145/90-B1 of M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. relate to duty demand on civil contracts for the construction of captive power plant at Bhatinda for the National Fertilisers Ltd. and construction work for Associated Bearing Co. Ltd. 8. Appeal Nos. E/62/92-B1 of M/s. Man Structures Ltd. The duty demand is on preparation of parts of Electricity Towers and Latis Mast. 9-10. Appeal Nos. E/485/91-B1 and E/1923/91-B1. In these appeals of M/s. Jai Para...

Akesh Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Shri Harmeet Singh Bakshi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)192; 78(1999)DLT364; ILR1999Delhi182

ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. An application by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to dig up a tubewell/borewell of sufficient depth in the backyard of the suit premises at their own expense for their exclusive use and enjoyment. They further want through the present application to allow the plaintiffs to put their exclusive use two overhead water tanks out of the four overhead water tanks for their own exclusive use and enjoyment and for supplying the water on the first floor i.e. the tenanted accommodation in occupation of the plaintiffs. 2. A few facts for the proper appreciation of the points in controversy before this Court are as under: that the plaintiffs are the tenants of defendant No.1 on the first floor of property bearing No. D 1059, New Friends Colony, New Delhi since 1980 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2530/. Defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 are bringing pressure on the plaintiffs in different ways in order to compel them to...

Ravinder Kumar Mathur (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)833; 1999RLR364

ORDERDevinder Gupta, ACJ.1. On 24.2.1994, the petitioner approached this Court praying for quashing letter dated 17.2.1994 of respondent No. 4 with further direction against respondent No. 4 to permit him to forthwith join M.D. (Community Health Administration) course of 1993 session and to award cost of petition against the respondents with further direction, as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Having obtained M.B.B.S. degree from University of Delhi and completed internship, the petitioner joined the Directorate of Health Services, Delhi Administration. During 1992, he was assigned the duties of Medical Officer with the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. Desirous of pursuing further academic qualification, the petitioner intended to appear in the examination for admission to the postgraduate courses, conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences. In keeping with the terms of his service, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 3...

Jersly India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT87TriDel

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay of recovery thereof, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 60,18,712/-(increased from Rs. 52,36,649/- in the show cause notice on the basis of revised figures of clearances furnished by the applicants and certified as correct by the Vice President (Finance) of the applicant company) on knitted fabrics containing elastomeric yarn manufactured by the appellants herein as a result of their classification under GET sub heading 6002.30, instead of under GET sub-heading 6002.90 as claimed by the appellants. A penalty of equal amount has been imposed under the provisions of Section HAG of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed under Rule 173Q.2. Shri M. Chandrashekharan, learned Counsel disputes the classification of the goods contending that the goods fall for classification under CET sub heading 6002.90 as knitt...

Sanjiva Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT184TriDel

1. By Stay Order No. S/131 /98-D, dated 17-8-1998, the applicant was directed a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs as pre-deposit within a period of 8 weeks. Arguing on the application for modification of the stay order, Shri P.M. Kaul, learned Advocate submits that the applicant is unable to arrange for the amount directed to be deposited and requests that the appeal be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. He submits that the present case is linked with that of Venkateshwar Essences and Chemicals P. Ltd. in the sense that Venkateshwar Essences has been held by the Department to be ineligible for the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 175/86 and the use of Venkateshwar Essence's brand name by the applicant herein has been used against them to hold that they are not covered by the benefit of the Notification above mentioned. He submits that Venkateshwar Essence's appeal is pending before the Southern Zonal Bench and has been fixed for hearing in the last week of February, 1999....

Harnam Singh Bishan Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) XVIII, New Delhi, dated 18th March, 1997, for asst. yr. 1991-92 confirming the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. "That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. He further erred in imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,10,500 on the appellants under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the imposition of the said penalty." 3. Shri K. Sampath, C.A. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri S.R. Malik, Departmental Representative, appeared for the Revenue.4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant company derives income from sale and purchase of gold and diamond ornaments. It filed its return of income for the above assessment year 31st December, 1991, showing a loss of Rs. 39,372. The Department conducted a survey at the business premis...