Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 22 of about 243 results (0.021 seconds)Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT139TriDel
1. Learned Advocate Ms. Indu Malhotra prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 1,01,78,183.00 demanded as duty and of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- imposed as penalty by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the applicants herein have manufactured machinery parts at site. It is described as soya extraction plant and soya oil refinery.Learned Advocate has submitted that they had given the contracts to various parties for erection and commissioning of the plant and the contractors had brought the bought out items at site to meet the requirement of the applicants herein and no activity of manufacture had been undertaken by the applicants in any way by way of fabrication of any machinery or part. Apart from that learned Advocate also points out that the appellants have been declared as a sick unit by the BIFR since January, 1998 inasmuch as their net worth has been eroded completely and they have no ability at all to pay dues whatsoever. In view of the Supreme Court's judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Sayaji Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT834TriDel
The appellants herein were issued with a show cause notice in 1972 alleging certain non-levy. Although a demand of Rs. one lakh was proposed on the basis of said judgment, but neither in the show cause notice nor in the adjudication order passed by the Collector in 1981, any demand of duty was quantified. Ld. Advocate has now submitted that it is against this order the appellants have come in appeal and appellants have moved an application under Section 35F. It has been pointed out by the ld. Advocate Shri Madhav Rao for the applicant that the provisions of Section 35F for pre-deposit pending appeal before the Tribunal cannot be invoked in the cases of show cause notices having been issued before 11-10-1982 when 35F was enforced. He relies for this preposition on two judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of Civil Writ Petition 237/95 and Misc. Applications No. 409/95, dated 8-4-1996 in the case of Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Ors. and (2) Civil Writ No. 2576/85 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(51)DRJ449
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner inter-alia seeks the following reliefs: '(a) Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the investigation being conducted by CBI pursuance to Crime Case No.RC-12)5)/98/SIC.IV/ND registered with them as per the order passed by Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946). (b) Quash the impugned notification issued by the Central Government vide which the fresh investigation of Case No.230/98P.S. Hat, Purnia, Bihar is handed over to the CBI.' 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- On June 14, 1998 an FIR being No. 230/98 was registered by Bihar Police under section 302 read with section 34/120-B IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Khajanchi Hat, Purnia, Bihar, relating to murder of four persons. After registration of the FIR the State Police took up the investigation in the matter. Howe...
Tag this Judgment!indo Gulf Explosives Ltd. and anr. (M/S) Vs. U.P. State Industrial Dev ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)311; 79(1999)DLT554
ORDERDevinder Gupta, ACJ1. The appellants have sought review of the order passed by us on 13.4.1999 by which we dismissed the appellant's appeal against the order passed on 21.1.1998 by learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 2. The grounds seeking review is that though the law has correctly been interpreted, but the same has not correctly been applied to the facts of the case. It was contended by Mr. Lekhi appearing for the appellants that conclusions in the concluding part of the Judgment need to be reviewed because the case of the appellants was that 'cause of action' and not just a 'part of cause of action' had arisen in Delhi for two reasons:- (a) Service of notice in terms of the license agreement dated 18.12.1984 was at the registered office of the appellant company at Delhi; and (b) Acceptance of the proposal by respondent No.1 dated 2.6.1984 containing the terms and conditions of the Government order was also in Delhi. 3. In view of the above, it was sub...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Singh (Shri) Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribu ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)48; 79(1999)DLT558; 1999(49)DRJ245A
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 10th November, 1997 by which the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had rejected the reference made to it at the behest of the petitioner herein on the ground that the telecom department of the Government is not an 'industry'. For this purpose reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996(8) SCC 488 Sub Divisional Inspector of Post v. They yam Joseph and anothers. The Tribunal had relied upon the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post case (supra) in preference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewrage Board Vs . A. Rajappa and others : (1978)ILLJ349SC . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since then the view taken in the judgment of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post has been overruled by a judgment of 3 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and or ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT717
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner inter-alia seeks the following reliefs:'(a) Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the investigation being conducted by CBI pursuance to Crime Case No. RC-12(S)/98/ SIC.IV/ND registered with them as per the order passed by Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946). (b) Quash the impugned notification issued by the Central Government vide which the fresh investigation of Case No. 230/98 P.S. Hat, Purnia, Bihar is handed over to the CBI.' 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: On June 14, 1998 an FIR being No. 230/98 was registered by Bihar Police under Section 302 read with Sections 34/120-B, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station, Khajanchi Hat, Purnia, Bihar, relating to murder of four persons. After registration of the FIR the State Police took up the investigation in the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Kant Jha Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT337
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 3 October, 1997 by which the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had rejected the reference made to it at the behest of the petitioner herein on the ground that the Telecom Department of the Government is not an 'industry'. For this purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (8) SCC 488, Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph and Ors. The Tribunal had relied upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post case (supra) in preference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. : (1978)ILLJ349SC . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since then the view taken in the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post has been overruled by a judgment of 3 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou...
Tag this Judgment!SalauddIn Sarkar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT47
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard. The accused/applicant was convicted under Sections 304-A, 279 and 338, IPC. The appeal was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge expressing doubts on the identity of the driver responsible for the accident and remanded the matter on 10th July, 1996 with the following observations. 'The Investigating Officer has then gone to the Hospital, where he is alleged to have recorded the statement of the complainant showing that accused appellant was also present in the Hospital where she as lying admitted for being mentioned as the driver of the offending vehicle in her statement Ex. P.P.-W-1/A. It has come in the evidence of Smt. Sarojini Swami that she is not conversant with Hindi language. The statement of Smt. Swami Ex. P.W.-1/A which is the basis of the FIR has been recorded in Hindi, which is signed by her in broken English. It becomes doubtful that the driver who was not shown arrested by the Police Officer at the spot was in fact present in the Hospi...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Steels Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT177TriDel
1. In these cases the adjudicating authority has rejected the applications of the appellants for re-determination of their Annual Capacity of Production on actual production basis under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the reason that the appellant has opted for discharge of duty liability in terms of Rule 96ZO(3).2. On hearing both sides, we find that it has already been held by the Tribunal in the case of Meenakshi Castings reported in 1999 (32) RLT 82 that Rule 96ZO(3) is in conflict with Sub-section 4 of Section 3A of the Act and it is a settled position that wherever there is conflict between Section and the Rule, Rule never over-rides the Section. The Tribunal has held that the relief or right granted under the Section cannot be taken away by Rule. The Tribunal has remanded the matter for determination of Annual Capacity of Production on the basis of actual production in terms of Section 3A(4). This view of the Tribunal has been followed subsequently in a series...
Tag this Judgment!Polyplex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC675Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants are manufacturers of polyester film out of polyester chips. The polyester chips are manufactured by the appellants' job workers from DMT and MEG directly supplied to them by the respective dealers / manufacturers of the latter at the instruction of the appellants. In respect of an invoice dated 30-11-1994 for DMT and MEG the appellants on receipt of intermediate product - polyester chips - received from the job workers took the credit of Rs. 1,52,880.00 on 24-7-1995. Both the authorities below have denied Modvat credit on the ground that credit had been taken beyond six months from the date of issue of the invoice which is not permissible in view of the amendment made in Rule 57G disallowing credit of duty after six months of the date of issue of the invoices. This amendment was made by Notification 28/95, dated 29-6-1995. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. Learned Advocate, Shri V. Swaminathan for the appellants has urged that the amendment made in Rule 57G b...
Tag this Judgment!