Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 18 of about 205 results (0.019 seconds)The Kondli Vikas Cooperative Dairy Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Delhi Mil ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ478
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The petitioners 1 and 2 are Cooperative Societies comprising of individuals who are engaged in the business of cattle rearing and milk selling. They are registered under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. Petitioners 3 and 4 are engaged in the business and are members of petitioners 1 and 2 Societies.2. The petitioners contend that the respondents are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent No. l purchases milk from Cooperative Societies, individuals and State Dairy Federations and supplies the same to the residents of Union Territory of Delhi after processing the same. The respondents, it is stated, have fixed a standard of milk to be purchased by them as one containing 6.5% of milk fat and 9.0% of solid non fat. The rate is fixed keeping this standard in mind. In case there is any deficiency in the milk supplied from this standard settled rate has got to be pro...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Singh Vs. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ306
J.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 27.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 in revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act 1962 (for short 'the Act') dismissing the petitioner's revision petition and confirming the order dated 23.6.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who had confirmed the order of the Additional Com-missioner, Customs except that the penalty was reduced from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 50,000/-, thereby maintaining the order confiscating foreign and Indian currencies amounting to Rs. 8,12,300/- and 'Katha' valued at Rs. 12,000/- which was allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 4,000/-, which were being exported illegally.2. Briefly the facts are that on 17.8.1995 at about 17.00 hours the petitioner holding the Afganistan passport was checked in at the Pakistan International Airlines Counter in the Departure Hall of IGI Airport, New Delhi while going to Lahore by partic...
Tag this Judgment!Saeeda M.A. Saeed Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)481; 1999CriLJ1796; 78(1999)DLT463; 1999(49)DRJ245
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1.Rule D.B. 2. In this habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order made by and in the name of Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi against his mother, Ms. Saeeda M.A. Saeed, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA Act). 3. The order of detention, dated 18 May, 1998, served on the detenu on the same date, pari passu, with the grounds of detention, formulated by the detaining authority of even date, is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain her with a view to preventing her from smuggling goods and also preventing her from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods, in future. 4. According to the grounds of detention, on 16 September, 1997 two lady passengers namely, Ms. Roma A....
Tag this Judgment!Tex Print Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC409
2. The appellants herein purchased duty paid flock covered cotton fabrics from the market They printed the said fabric and cleared the same. Contention of the appellants herein is that no new commodity has been manufactured by them calling for levy of duty again at the stage of printing of the cotton fabric.3. Revenue on the other hand contends that printed cotton flocked fabric manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein is a totally different commodity than nonprinted fabric and, therefore, another duty liability arises.4. Ld. Advocate Sh. J.S. Agarwal, submits that the aforesaid contention of the Revenue is not correct because the uses to which the nonprinted cotton flock fabric [could] be put are not changed by the printing of the said fabric. He submits that the question whether there is 'manufacture' of a commodity by undertaking certain processes has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. J.G.Glass reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). He draw...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Libra Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT348TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue seeks remand of the order of the Collector confirming a duty demand of about Rs. 17 lakhs. The demand was raised on the ground that the clearances of two units namely M/s.Libra Industries & M/s. Secca Scale Co. should be clubbed together and treated as one unit while allowing their claim to small scale exemption. The notice had also contended that installation charges and value of peripherals (supplied along with weighing machines) should be included in the assessable value of the goods. The Revenue has in its appeal contended that the printer unit (peripheral) is an essential part of the weighing machine. On the installation charges, it has been submitted that M/s. Libra Industries were including the installation charges in certain cases while paying duty.2. Heard the learned DR Shri R.K. Sharma who has reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal of the Revenue. Heard Shri Gopal Prasad learned Advocate for the respondents.3. Shri Gopal Prasad drew our...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pearl Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC854Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The respondents herein were manufacturing rivets during the relevant period i.e. 1-2-1989 to 31-7-1989. They were affixing the brand name of their customers on such rivets manufactured by the respondents and sold to such customers. Revenue by issue of a show cause notice dated 31-8-1989 demanded duty on the clearance value of those rivets having the brand name of the customers affixed thereon by invoking para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-CE. 1.2 A contention was raised before the lower appellate authority that the appellants, no doubt, were affixing the brand name of their customers on the said rivets but the said rivets were not being sold by their customers. Those rivets were used in manufacture of further products, namely, clutch assembly or brake assembly. It was, therefore, contended by the respondents herein that the provisions of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. would not be applicable to the said goods in view of the proviso to para 7. On this contention lower appell...
Tag this Judgment!Bhilwara Processors Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(99)LC852Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is levy of Central Excise duty on processing charges. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel Shri R.K.Kapoor submits that according to Supreme Court judgment in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC) : 1989 (21) ECR 1 (SC) : ECR C 1347 SC, the processor is to pay duty only on the processing charges up to the factory gate of the processor. In the instant case the appellants were receiving fabrics from several suppliers and were returning the goods after processing. They were collecting only processing charges from the supplier of the fabrics.However, they used to pay duty on value inclusive of the post manufacturing expenses. Shri Kapoor submits that on merits duty paid on amounts in excess of the processing charges plus value of the fabrics was liable to be refunded to them. Their refund claims in this regard have been rejected partly on the ground that claims amounting to about Rs. 83 lakhs were time barred and, t...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Unique Vinyl Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC312Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 10.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Learned Departmental Representative for the appellant (Commissioner) stated that the respondents are registered with Central Excise Department but were not registered as/SSI unit with Directorate of Industries/Development Commissioner- SSI or DGTD. They filed their C/List effective from 1.4.1993 opting for payment of normal rate of duty upto the limit of Rs. 30 lakh after availing credit of duty on inputs.2(a). Two show-cause notices were issued. They were asked as to why mod-vat credit should not be disallowed as they were governed by the Clause (2) of Notification No. 1/93.2(b). The Assistant Commissioner decided the case with regard to both the Show-cause notices and held that when two notifications i.e. 1/93 and 14/93 provide benefit of exemption from payment of duty simultaneously, it becomes optional for the party to choose either of the two and simultan...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Bhandari and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC806Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi by which he has confiscated absolutely 138 gold biscuits of foreign origin valued at approximately Rs, 72 lakhs, seized on 26.10.1993 from Maruti Car No. DL-IC-C 8460 at Singhu Border, Delhi, occupied by Naresh Kumar, confiscated absolutely the above mentioned car and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Naresh Kumar, Rs. 25 lakhs on Kulbir Singh, holding him to be involved in smuggling/carrying/keeping and selling gold and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Rajan Bhandari, who has been held to have connived with the above mentioned two appellants in transporting and dealing with smuggled goods.2. We have heard Shri Deepak Gandhi, learned Advocate appearing along with Ms. Pramila Kapoor, Advocate for all the 3 appellants and Shri M.M. Dubey, learned DR for the Revenue.3. None of the appellants have claimed the gold and hence we are only required to deal with the liability to penalty of the 3 appella...
Tag this Judgment!SaleemuddIn and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)548; 85(2000)DLT350; I(2000)DMC693; 2000(56)DRJ180
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the statement of husband wife may be recorded. Let their statements be recorded.Heard the counsel for the parties. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under :Petitioner No. 1, Saleemuddin was married to complainant/respondent No. 2, Najma Naaz, on 23rd March, 1987 according to Muslim law. Two children were born out of the wedlock. However, some differences and misunderstanding arose in the family. Najam Naaz, wife, lodged an FIR No. 171/91 under Section 498-A/406 I.P.C. with the police station Chandi Mahal, Delhi. Other petitioners are brothers and sisters of petitioner No.1, Saleemuddin. There has been inter se fights among the two families. Recently on intervention of elderly and respectable people of the area the families of petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 sat down and decided to end the bitterness and to live in peace in futher. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 accordingly agreed to live together for t...
Tag this Judgment!