Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Lalit Kumar Bagla Vs. Rakesh Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ812

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By this application I propose to dispose of the present application filed by the Defendant under Order xxxvII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to defend the suit. The Suit, is for the recovery of RS. 43,92,000/- (Rs. Forty three lakhs and ninety two thousand only). Briefly stated, the case in the plaint is that the Defendant had signed a cheque for a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty six lakhs only) which upon presentation was dishonoured with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'.2. Mr. S.K. Kaul, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant has contended that the cheque was undoubtedly given towards the settlement of dues by the Defendant. However, the terms of agreement in this respect were contained in an Agreement dated 26th August, 1996, a photo copy of which is available on the Court records. This document is not in dispute. Mr. Kaul has drawn attention to Clause 4 of this Agreement which reads as under:-4) 'That in the event of the...

NitIn Walia Minor Through (Sh. Vijay Pal Walia) Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2001)ACC275; 2001ACJ462; AIR2001Delhi140

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. At the tender age of three years, Nitin Walia, applicant in the present case lost his right arm in an unfortunate incident. It has crippled him for life. It happened on 20th March, 1988. This boy of three years of age-was feeling excited and jubilant when he visited National Zoological Park, Delhi along with his family members to see various animals kept in zoo. His joy was boundless when he reached the enclosure where the white tigress was being kept. He was with his father and other family members. All family members were keenly watching the tigress. The boy, at that age, who had never seen such an animal was exhilarated. It was wonder for him. The white tigress was kept inside iron bars. There was railing before that. Appellant reached near the railing without realizing as to what was in store for him. The tigress all of a sudden grabbed his hand through the railing and pulled it in. Other family members reached to the rescue of the appellant and tried to put the t...

Parminder Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ677

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, who is a visually handicapped person, has filed the present writ petition, seeking, inter alia, a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 2 to conduct the examinations- written, typing and shorthand for the visually handicapped, to he conducted by the Staff Selection Board, by providing question papers of written lest, typing and shorthand tests in bold or large print Along with braille, both in Hindi and English. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that petitioner is a visually handicapped person, falling within the category of (b)/(c), as specified in advertisement issued in the Employment News dated 15-21st July, 2000. The persons in these categories are not totally blind, i.e. those with total absence of sight, but are those who are visually handicapped with some degree of sight or vision. These persons, as per the petitioner, can, with the aid of lenses, etc., read bold print. Such persons, with the withdrawal of question papers in bold ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vikram Woollens

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT812TriDel

1. Revenue is in appeal. The dispute related to valuation of goods captively consumed. Impugned Order-in-Appeal held that when no profit was, in fact, earned by an assessee, there was no provision in law to make an addition of notional profit. The Commissioner was passing this order by following an earlier order of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Patna v. Sumitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 453 (T). The Departmental Representative, however, supports the appeal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assam Valley Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India -1996 (83) E.L.T. 494 (S.C.). Learned Departmental Representative submits that this order of the Supreme Court approves addition of notional profit of 10% in the case of valuation of captively consumed goods.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is settled law from several decisions of this Tribunal - CCE, Patna v. Sumitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 453 (T); Gabriel India L...

M/S. Hitkari Potteries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT241TriDel

1. The appellants manufacture 'Plastic flexible film' and 'Plastic pouches' falling under Sub-headings 3920.32 and 3923.90 respectively.The Central Excise Officers of Chandigarh Commissionerate visited their factory premises on 5.12.91 and verified their stocks. On verification, they found that the final finished stock of flexible plastic films valued at Rs.65,242.10 involving Central Excise duty of Rs.17,941/- was in excess of the recorded balances in their RG-1 Register. These goods were seized and the proceedings were drawn against them. The party pleaded before the Central Excise authorities that the goods were yet to be packed when the Central Excise Officers visited their premises.They have also pleaded that the goods were still lying in the factory premises and there was no attempt to remove them. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Shimla, however, in his order dt. 27.11.98 held that there is a specific column in the RG 1 Register to record the production as soon...

C.C.E. Delhi - Iii Vs. M/S. Dhillon Cook Drinks and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panipat vide his order dt.23.9.97 denied the modvat credit amounting to Rs.3,77,327/- to the respondents on the ground that this amount of modvat credit is availed by the respondents on 'glass bottles'. It is stated that under Rule 57A, the modvat credit on packing material i.e., 'glass bottles' used in packing aerated water is allowed only if the cost of bottle is included in the value of bottle of aerated water. It is contended that the inclusion of the value of the bottle calculated on a number of rotations of the value of bottle in the assessable value does not fulfill the condition of Rule 57-A. It is further stated that the bottle in respect of aerated water is returnable packing. The bottle is returned to the bottling plant after the contents are consumed. So, the value of final product being sold in market is the value of the contents of the bottle i.e. 'Aerated Water' (SIC) value of bottle is not included. He, accordingly held that...

M/S. Bee Ess Agro Inputs (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that the appellants manufacture 'Rubber Rolls' falling under Chapter NO. 40 of the Schedule to the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of manufacture of these products, 'Compounded Rubber' falling under Chapter sub-heading 4005.00 is manufactured and consumed captively in the manufacture of final product of 'Rubber Rolls'. The intermediate product, Compound Rubber, prior to 1.3.94 was exempt from payment of Central Excise Duty under Notfn. No. 152/87-CE dt. 25.5.87. this notification was rescinded with effect from 1.4.94 vide Notfn. No. 64/94-CE dt. 1.3.94.Consequently, the Compounded Rubber became chargeable to duty @ 20% Advalorem. The product, Compounded Rubber was subsequently subjected to 'Nil' rate of duty, if consumed captively, vide Notfn. No. 74/94-CE dt.28.3.94. The Joint Commissioner (Preventive) of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II vide his order dt. 4.10.99 confirmed a duty of Rs. 36,078/- on the appellants on the Compounded ...

Devi Lal Kutir Soap Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT143TriDel

1. When Miscellaneous Application 411 /2000 praying for early hearing of the appeal came up for orders, learned Consultant representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal itself may be heard and disposed of. agreed to by the parties, we heard the arguments at length. We are disposing of the appeal itself.2. Appellant is a proprietary concern. It is alleged that it is located in a rural area. The product manufactured by it is laundry soaps. It has got approval from Khadi and Village Industries Commission. Laundry soaps produced by the appellants were sought to be assessed to excise duty. Proposed action of the excise authorities was opposed on the ground that tariff entry 3401.13 fixed nil duty for laundry soaps produced in such organisation and also that General Exemption No. 12 issued by the Central Government exempt goods from duty in case tariff entry 3401.13 is not found to cover the product. This contention raised by the appellant ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mech. Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT145TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the entitlement of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-86 to the respondents in respect of the clearances made by them up to Rs. 30 lakhs during the period 1-4-91 to 31-3-92.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable items falling under Chapters 84 and 73 of the CETA. They cleared their excisable goods in the aggregate value of Rs. 29,04,069.63, of Chapter 84 up to 16-3-92 and of Rs. 2,49,227/- of Chapter 73 up to 27-2-92.Since the total aggregate value of these clearances came to Rs. 31,53,296.63, they were served with a show cause notice for payment of duty on the exceeded clearances of the value of Rs. 2,26,595/-. After getting the reply, the Assistant Commissioner through Order-in-original confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 13,029.21 on them. But this order of the Assistant Commissioner, when challenged in appeal by the respondents, was reversed through impugned Order-in-appeal by the Commissio...

Dr. M.V. Rao Vs. Chief General Manager, S.B.i. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1002; [2001(89)FLR44]; (2001)ILLJ1634Del

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ/direction to respondent No.1 to withdraw the Office Order No. 8 dated 26.9.2000 in so far as it affects the petitioner and also for quashing of the said office order and for not transferring the petitioner from the post of Chief Manager, Consistency Cell, Delhi Zonal Office, the petitioner by this C.M. seeks to restrain the respondents from relieving the petitioner from the present position of Chief Manager, Consistency Sales, Delhi Zonal Office during the pendency of this writ petition. 2. It may be noted at the out set that in the writ petition, the impugned transfer order (Annexure-A) is not challenged on the ground of mala fide.3. The impugned transfer order is challenged on the ground, as suggested from the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on 29.9.2000, that it is only respondent No. 2 who can issue the transfer orders and not respondent No.1, in other wor...