Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

Deena Paints Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(96)LC170Tri(Delhi)

1. In the impugned Order Ld. Commissioner has held "the duty of Rs. 33,799,83.54 was not paid/short paid by reason of wilful misstatement and or suppression of facts with an intention to evade the payment of duty. The duty of Rs. 33,799,83.54 is therefore, rightly demandable under provision to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act 1944. The interest on the duty of Rs. 33,799,83.54 not paid/short paid by reason of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts is also demandable under Section 11AB of the Act ibid. The penalty equivalent to Rs. 33,799,83.54 is also imposable on the said M/s. Deena Paints Ltd. under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Accordingly I demand duty of excise amounting to Rs. 33,799,83.54 form the said M/s. Deena Paints Ltd. under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I impose a penalty of Rs. 33,799,83.54 on the said M/s. Deena Paints Ltd. under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944....

Gauri Shankar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT286TriDel

1. The matter was called, Shri Krishan Kumar, Advocate, appeared for the appellant Shri Gauri Shankar Singh, Raja Ki Mandi, Agra. For the respondent/Revenue, Shri K. Panchasaran, JDR, is present.2. According to the facts on record, four silver slabs weighing 20140 gms. were recovered from the possession of the appellant by the State Police on 7-10-1991 when the appellant was in the city of Basti and was standing before his hotel. The police had seized the silver on the suspicion that it was stolen property. The recovery was made by the police on 7-10-1991 and it was only on 17-12-1991 that the silver slabs were handed over to the Customs Department. The Customs Officers alleged that the goods were smuggled and had been brought into India from Nepal in violation of Notification No. 76/65 dated 19-6-1965 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had pleaded that he was a petty goldsmith, had never gone to Nepal, the goods were not smuggled goods and that he had got...

intertec Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC155

1. The common issued involved in all these four appeals filed by M/s.Intertec is whether the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.2.93 is available to other goods manufactured by them in view of the fact that they had opted to pay Central Excise duty in respect of "Vertical Blinds of Textiles," also 2. Shri G. Shivdas, Ld. Advocate, mentioned that Appellants, a partnership firm, have three factories in which they manufacture aluminium name plates/signage of base metals, vertical blinds of aluminium, aluminium and steel structurals, fabric based vertical blinds, etc., that fabric based vertical blinds are cleared under the brand name of M/s. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd.; that they filed a declaration Under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules indicating that they would be clearing the fabric based vertical blinds on payment of full rate of duty without availing of exemption under Notification No. 1/93 but would be availing the benefit of the said Notification ...

Vivekanand Pratisthan Parishad Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi104; 2000(57)DRJ255

ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the demand of ground rent from the year 1989 as well as receipt of the draft lease deed only on 10-10-1996, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended by Mr. Khadari, learned counsel for the petitioner that initially five acres of land belonging to the petitioner-Society was acquired by the Union of India in 1964, out of which two acres of land was allotted by the respondent /DDA to the petitioner society for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,97,000/- for the purposes of establishment and construction of Vivekanand Hospital and Yoga Centre. The said money was deposited by the petitioner on 9-5-1985, however, possession of the land could not be given by the respondent since there was unauthorised and illegal occupation by the encroachers over the said land. It seems that the formal possession of land measuring 8000 sq. mtrs. was handed over to the petitioner, excluding ...

P. Sridhar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ220

Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. The petitioner had been allotted a STD/ISD/PCO booth on out of turn basis under Franchise Scheme at the National Sports Club of India (NSCI), Mathura Road, New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner emanates from the fact that the respondent/MTNL vide letter dated 24.11.1998, notified the petitioner that there were outstandings of over Rs. 3 lacs in respect of Telephone No. 3782849 provided as STD/ISD/PCO at NSCI. It had been closed on 28.3.1998. On account of this outstanding, respondent/MTNL was not willing to allot the telephone booth to the petitioner at NSCI on out of turn basis, as proposed.2. The petitioner claims that he is not responsible for the outstandings of the previous allottee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit also, wherein it is stated that petitioner has neither any personal nor commercial relations with the previous allottee and in...

S.K. Srivastava Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi282; 2000(57)DRJ774

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.The petitioner, an unemployed graduate who was allotted MTNL STD/ISD booth in the premises of respondent No. 1 & 2 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents having issued a notice calling for fresh tenders (Annexure 'D' page 25 of the paper book),2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bajpai has submitted before me that under the 1993 Policy the STD/ISD booths were to be allotted only to unemployed persons and the impugned invitation to tender/advertisement at Annx.-D at page 25, does not contain any such restriction. He, thereforee, submits that the said tender is bad on account of not restricting it to unemployed persons, but for not even reserving a quota for the unemployed persons. Another plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the MTNL had in a communication appearing a...

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Poonam and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ149

S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. In this case, the short question relates to whether on the date of accident while driving Tempo No. HYJ - 1166, the driver Anil Kumar was having a valid driving licence. This offending vehicle is a tempo Tata 407 which was being used for transporting goods. 2. There is no dispute in between the parties to the effect that license No. 37988/RSD issued to Anil Kumar on 13th September 1993 for driving a scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep. This fact was proved by Vijender Singh, clerk from Licensing Authority, Rohtak who verified the licence. This fact is also supported by RW-1, Mr. R.K. Bahl, AO of National Insurance Co. There is also no dispute about the fact that an endorsement was made on this driving license for driving Light Transport Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as 'LTV' for short) as well on 30th July, 1996 vide Ex. RW-1/3. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that this driving license could not be used for driving the vehicle in question. ...

Bhatia Apartments (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR244(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The facts of this case revolve in a narrow compass and are not disputed. These facts may be stated first, before coming to the controversy involved in this writ petition.2. An agreement dated September 30, 1986, was entered into between the petitioner, on the one hand, and respondents Nos. 4 to 6, on the other hand. By the said agreement, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to sell the property bearing No. B-23A, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi, measuring about 350 sq. yds. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 16,50,000. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid by three pay orders all dated September 25, 1986. The balance amount of Rs. 15,00,000 was to be paid by the petitioner to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 at the time of registration of the sale deed. Physical possession of the property in question was also to be handed over by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to the petitioner at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed.3. As on September 30, 1986, Chapter...

Chiranji Lal (Since Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Hari Das Sood (Since Decd ...

Court: Delhi

Arun Kumar, J.1. This appeal involves a short question of law and therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties we have taken it up for final hearing at this stage itself. The question for consideration is : "What is the starting point for purposes of calculating the period of limitation for execution of a final decree in a suit for partition of properties by metes and bounds?"2. Briefly the facts which are necessary to appreciate the controversy in the present case are that the final decree for partition by metes and bounds was passed on 7th August, 1981. The stamp papers which are required to be filed for purposes of drawing up the final decree in a suit for partition of properties were filed by the decree-holder on 25th May, 1982. The execution application was filed on 21st March, 1994. The objection was taken by the judgment-debtor that the decree was in executable in view of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. The said Article provides a period of 12 years for ...

Shri Umed Cement Udyog and Gandhar Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC571

1. Both the appeals are filed against the common Order-in-Appeal, hence, are being taken up together.2. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification 38/97 CE dated 27.6.97 during the period from Jan. 98 to June 98 as they had not fulfilled the mandatory conditions of the notification.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants filed a classification list claiming the benefit of notification. The classification list was filed on 8.1.98. He submits that, thereafter, vide letter dated 9.1.98, the appellants had also filed declaration as required under the notification. He submits that substantive conditions of the notification are complied with, therefore, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the notification. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the cases of -- (1) Jupiter Engineering Works v. C.C.E. Mumbai reported in 2000 (90) ECR 297 and submits that in ...