Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Texcomash Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT396TriDel

1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Texcomash Export is whether the value of goods exported by them was overvalued by them.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants filed a Shipping Bill (SB) No. 4462, dated 12-7-1994, under claim for duty drawback, for export of 16000/- pieces of men's shirts made of 100% viscose for export to Russia. The price declared by them was Rs. 2,48,25,878.40 and the drawback claimed was Rs. 155.16 per piece. A show cause notice dated 8-8-1994 was issued to them for denial of drawback claim and for confiscation of goods as the inquiry conducted from Shri Rajan Gupta of M/s Dress "N" Style, Vasant Place Market, New Delhi and M/s Sneh Libas, Vasant Place Market New Delhi revealed that the wholesale price of the shirt would be about Rs. 50/- to 75/- per piece and retail price would be about Rs. 90/- to 110/-. The Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi under the impugned order, directed appropriation of Rs 2 lakhs towards fine from the bank guar...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. P.L.A. Components

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT913TriDel

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay who has held that the benefit of Notification 160/86, dated 1-3-1986 is available to Relays manufactured by the respondents herein, upholding the order of the Assistant Collector who had extended the benefit. According to the Department, relays are nothing but switches and not eligible to the benefit of notification since switches are excluded from coverage under the Notification.2. We have heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR and Shri S.P. Pathak, learned Advocate. We find that the lower Appellate authority has gone into the definition of relays and switches in the technical dictionaries such as McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, as well as HSN Explanatory Notes. The HSN Explanatory notes at page 1989 makes a distinction between switches and relays although both are apparatus for switching electrical circuits. ISI standards have different specifications for switches and...

Jai Corp. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT356TriDel

1. These are three appeals. Appeal Nos. C/81,82 and 90/99-AD are filed by the appellants M/s. Jai Corporation Ltd. the importer, M/s. J.S.C.Severstal, Russia, the producer and M/s. Metalsrussia, Russia, the Exporter respectively with reference to the final finding of the Designated Authority No. 14-1-1997/ADD, dated 18th November, 1998.2. The Designated Authority initiated an investigation into the alleged dumping of Hot Rolled Coils, Sheets, Strips, Plates falling under Heading 7208 of the Customs Tariff originating in or exported from Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine vide Notification No.14/1 /97/ADD, dated 6th October, 1997. The investigation resulting in the order impugned was initiated on an application filed by M/s. SAIL and M/s. Essar and supported by M/s. Lloyds and M/s. TISCO. The period of investigation was 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 1997. The Designated Authority sent questionnaire to the exporters and importers to elicit relevant information. Additional information regar...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Wud Tools

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT764TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the circular blades, bias cutting blades, and top and bottom cutting blades. There were some other items also in respect of which the classification was challenged in the show cause notice, dated 14-1-1992, but the present appeal filed by the Revenue do not refer to those items. The appellants were classifying these goods under Heading No. 82.08 of the Central Excise Tariff and were paying appropriate duty thereon. They filed a revised classification list effective from 22-8-1991 classifying these products under Heading No. 82.02 of the Tariff. The proceedings were drawn and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) observed that the Heading No. 82.02 specifically covered blades for saws of all kinds and held that these products were covered by Heading No. 82.02. The Revenue in appeal had submitted that while there may be no dispute with regard to the blades for saws of all kinds (including slitting, s...

Birla Periclase Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC381

1. These appeals arise out of final findings arrived at by the Designated Authority published in the Ministry of Commerce notification dated 2-2-1999 in the anti-dumping investigation concerning import of Fused Magnesia from China PR. We are disposing of these appeals by this common order.2. Appeal No. C/152/99-AD is filed by M/s. Birla Periclase at whose instance proceedings under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, were initiated. In this appeal, appellant prays for enhancement of anti-dumping duty recommended by the Designated Authority which was notified by the Government of India. The main argument made by the appellant is that the Designated Authority did not fix the normal value of Magnesia correctly on actual data. The cost of electricity consumed in manufacture of Fused Magnesi...

Suresh Kumar Bhola Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dated 7.10.1998 at the instance of Respondent 1, that is the General Manager, Northern Railway, transferring him on administrative grounds from Delhi Division. CPC/MUT to Ambala Division.2. Shri B.S. Mainee, learned counsel for the applicant, has very vehemently submitted that the respondents cannot transfer the applicant from Delhi Division to Ambala Division and the impugned order is illegal arbitrary and discriminatory. He has stated that the seniority of Parcel Clerks/Chief Parcel Clerks is division-wise and they can only be transferred within the Division. The applicant was working as Chief Parcel Clerk (CPC) at Meerut Cantonment, Delhi Division when an incident had occurred on 21.8.1998. A person had approached him to book his cycle from Meerut Cantt to Swai Madhopur. A sum of Rs. 40/- was paid towards freight for the cycle and the applicant had booked it for transportation and gave the receipt to the person co...

Dhan Singh, Armed Police and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Police and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A both the Original Applications are directed against the same order and both the applicants were subjected to the same common disciplinary proceedings, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The applicants in the two OAs namely, ASI Dhan Singh and Constable Hoshiar Singh were served with a summary of allegations. After the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded, the enquiry officer framed the charge as follows: "You, Inspr. Ram Narain, No.D-1/29, ASI Dhan Singh, No.2028/SW, HC Dilawar Singh, Ct. Kirpal Singh, Ct. Sukh Ram and Ct. Hoshiar Singh are hearby charged that while you were all posted in the Vigilance Staff of South-West Distt., you with your mutual connivance extorted Rs. 22,000/- from Dr. Hosiar Singh r/o Vill. Fatehpur fieri, Mehrauli, Delhi by threatening him that a complaint against Dr. Hoshiar Singh had been received in your office to the effect that he possessed a false qualification certificate. On 13.11.90, you ASI Dhan Singh, HC Dilawar Si...

Arjan Dev Mittra Vs. Sh. Sada Nand and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)129; AIR2000Delhi236; 84(2000)DLT315; 2000(53)DRJ715

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Sada Nand Mittra and Laxmi Devi filed a petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of probate to them of a registered Will dated 2nd May, 1977 executed by their deceased mother Chhinko Bai, who expired on 5th May, 1986. Chhinko Bai was survived by her three sons and two daughters. Arjan Dev Mittra filed objections against the said Will before the Trial Court. Trial Court framed an issue to the following effect:- 'Whether Smt.Chhinko Bai executed a valid Will dated 2nd May, 1977 while in sound disposing mind.?' 2. The above issue was decided in favor of the respondents. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by said Arjan Dev Mittra. 4. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that EX. PW. 2/1 i.e. Will dated 2nd May, 1977 in view of two different inks having been used on the same Will create suspicion regarding its genuine-ness. He has contended that report of the hand writin...

Bal Krishan Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)193; 2000CriLJ1217; 83(2000)DLT508; 2000(52)DRJ502

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the charge framed by a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 325/34 IPC on 6th October, 1998 against the petitioner and setting aside of the order dated 23rd April, 1999 passed by an Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition filed against the said charge by the petitioner. 2. In regard to the occurrence dated 10th October, 1992 Dhir Singh made a complaint to Commissioner of Police on 16th October, 1992 and on failure of the police to register FIR, Crl. W. No. 624/92 was filed by him. This writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 13th May, 1994 with the direction to the police authorities to register an FIR on the basis of complaint which was the subject matter of the petition and to investigate it as per law. Investigation was, however, ordered to be carried out by the Crime Branch instead of local police. As is manifest from the said order, the a...

M/S. Escorts Finance Ltd. Vs. Nielcon Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)611; 85(2000)DLT773

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. Applications (I. As. 4411/98 & 4413/98) under Order 37, Rule 3(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') have been filed by the two defendants separately for condensation of delay in filing applications for leave to defend. 2. Plaintiff, a non-banking financial corporation, has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,50,645/- under summary procedure of Order 37 of the Code against the defendants, defendant No. 1 as the principal debtor and defendant No. 2 as its surety. The plaintiff had granted a loan of Rs. 30.00 lakhs to finance certain plant and machinery to defendant No. 1. An agreement was executed between the parties on 29.12.1994 agreeing to repay the loan in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 1,10,834/- each. Some installments were paid but balance remained unpaid. Some cheques given towards the repayment were dishonoured. After serving notice of demand, the suit was filed for recovery of the balance amount. The defendants put in appearance. Summon...