Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Roop Kishore Madan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1219
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This Criminal Misc. (Main) 4184/2000 is a petition wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 1088/96, Police Station, Srinivaspuri, under Section 306 IPC and proceedings emanating there from. The facts of this case, as stated in the FIR, stem from the statement of Mrs. Linda Brady, resident of 179-C, Pocket-C, Sidhartha Extension, New Delhi who stated that she was residing at above address and doing her own publication business. On 18.10.96 she left her house at about 10.00 O' clock by Laxi for work. Her daughter, Sharon Brady, was alone in house. Her son, Trevor had left for his work. She returned back to her house around 10.30 p.m. and found her daughter was lying dead on bed. She talked to her daughter on phone around 3.30 p.m. She was normal. A suicide note was found which had been handed over by her son, Trevor to the police. Trevor had told her that when he returned around 8.00 p.m. the house was locked. There were three keys of the house one was ...
Ace Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT376TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against orders of the lower authorities rejecting their three refund applications amounting to over Rs. 27 lakhs. The appellants are manufacturers of P&P medicines. Such medicines when sold to the domestic market are liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff item 3003.10. The appellant exported part of their production under bond. At the time of clearance of the goods under AR-4As, the goods were classified under Tariff item 3003.10 and assessed to duty. However, the goods were exported without payment of duty under bond. Thus, there was no dispute at the time of export of the goods that the goods were P&P medicines and that they were liable to payment of Central Excise duty.2. The appellants had taken Modvat credit of the duty paid by them on the inputs which had gone into the production ol the export goods. That credit could not be utilised as the final products got exported. Under Rule 57F(4) such balance credit on account of the export of final ...
Shobhit Impex Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT435TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order dated 29-6-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh under which he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 64 lakhs on appellant No. 1, in terms of Rule 173Q(1)(bb) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules. Penalty has been imposed for the reason that appellant No. 1 who is a registered dealer in continuous cast electrolytic copper wire rods, copper scrap, brass scrap, zinc ingots, etc. issued Modvatable invoices to various buyers without physically first bringing the goods into their registered godown as required under the Central Excise Rules and then issuing invoices, and in certain other cases they issued only paper invoices to certain manufacturers of metal/buyers in the States of Punjab and Haryana without actually despatching the goods covered by the invoices to them, and disposing of such goods to other buyers, thus deliberately and intentionally facilitating the buyers/manufacturers to avail inadmissible credit of duty paid on ...
Escorts Employees Ancillaries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC336Tri(Delhi)
1. Shri R.C. Gupta, Ld. Advocate, submitted that M/s. Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd. were sending the inputs, on which Modvat Credit had been availed of, under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules; that the Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 6000/- on them as the inputs worth Rs. 26,100/- were not received back after further processing from the job workers and inputs valued at Rs. 2,96,230/- were received back after the stipulated period of 60 days; that Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order had reduced the penalty to Rs. 3000/-. The Ld. Advocate, further, mentioned that the duty involved on the inputs not received back was only Rs. 6,525/- which has been deposited by them suo motu on 14.11.1994 even before the issue of the show-cause notice; that Rule 57F(2) did not specify any time limit for bringing back the inputs; that in any case the inputs were received back and used in the manufacture of the final products and as such no Revenue loss is involved i...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT115TriDel
1.The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the demand for cess made by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I as per Order-in-Original No. 76/94, dated 29-09-1994 is in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 15(2) of the Oil Industries Development Act (OIDA), 1974. Section 15(2) of that Act, inter alia, states that the excise duty leviable in the case of crude oil shall be at the quantity received in a refinery. So excise duty should be on the quantity of crude oil received in the refinery. In other words, the duty cannot be on the basis of the quantity loaded in the ship or tanker. In the instant case, there is dispute regarding the quantity actually received in the refinery. According to the assessee, entire quantity loaded in the tanker was not crude oil measured and the crude oil which reached the refinery was far less than the quantity loaded in the tanker. Assessee concedes their liability to pay duty on the quantity received in ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Assam Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT73TriDel
1. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the issue pending before us now are as follows : 2. Whether the craft paper bag having an inner metallic coating or aluminium imported for re-export after packing of tea shall be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 97/79 or not. Assistant Collector took the view that those paper bags were not covered by Notification No. 97/29 and consequently he denied the benefit to the assessee. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) observed "with regard to Notification No. 97/79-Cus., it exempts containers which are durable.The appellant multi-wall paper sacks is a durable container and it is durable as tea is exported in it without any further cartoning or packing. I, therefore, feel that the benefit of this Notification accrues to the appellants. However, they have to satisfy the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods imported were exported within six months. As the benefit was denied at the first stage, naturally no bond wa...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Argus Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT468TriDel
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follow: Assessee, M/s. Argus Laboratories were manufacturing the product "Alprovit" on behalf of M/s. Cachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was the job worker. M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals, owner of the product filed price-list for the product in part-I proforma. M/s. Cachet Pharmaceuticals sold the entire product to M/s. Alchem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., who were selling the product to different dealers in the market. Question arose as to whether advertisement, publicity and propaganda expenses borne by M/s. Alchem Laboratories were to be added to the assessable value declared by M/s. Argus Laboratories. The basis for this allegation was not disclosed in the show-cause notice [SCN] filed by the Assistant Collector. Accordingly, the price-list filed by M/s. Argus Laboratories was approved after loading it by 15.20 per cent stated to have been incurred by M/s. Alchem ...
Birla Ericsson Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC393
1. Appellants in all these appeals challenge Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance on 28th June, 2000 imposing Anti-dumping duty on Optical Fibre originating in or exported form Korea.2. M/s. Sterlite Industries Ltd. filed written application before the Designated Authority constituted in terms of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) for initiating investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of Optical Fibre originating in or exported from South Korea. On the basis of that application, Authority issued a Public Notice dated 1st July, 1999 in the Gazette of India initiating Anti-dumping investigation. In response to that notification and the questionnaire sent by the Designated Authority, appellants herein and others furnished details.Authority also conducted on the spot investigati...
Shri Ranjit Singh and Another Vs. Smt. Inez Richards
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT299; 2001(60)DRJ78
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is a concurrent finding against the Landlord/Petitioner by the Rent Controller as fell as by the Rent Controller as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal in respect of the claim for eviction under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which reads as follows:'14(1)d): that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof.'2. The averments before the Rent Controller are that the Respondents locked up the suit premises on 29.6.1992 and went abroad and that she had not come back till the filing of the Petition on 4.1.1993. It has been further averred that the Respondent was living alone in the suit premises as her husband has died and her children was settled abroad even prior to th...
Kulwant Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1021; 2001(73)ECC438
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal 248 of 1997 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 24.5.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 73/96 arising out of a complaint filed by the Narcotic Control Bureau (for short 'NCB') through Mr. Surinder Singh wherein it is alleged that the accused, Kulwant Singh, on secret information dated 16.4.1996, (Ex. PW-4/B) was apprehended in front of Sachha Sodda Gurudwara while he was going in his Maruti car bearing DBG 4157.2. A raiding party, on the aforesaid secret information, was constituted which comprised of Mr. Shailender Sharma, PW-5, Mr. Surender Singh, PW-4, Mr. Manoj Sharma, PW-3, Mrs. Suman Kumari, PW-10. Acting on the information, the aforesaid car was signaled to stop but it spread away and was, as already stated, apprehended in front of Sachha Sodda Gurudwara. On the evidence adduced before him, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psyc...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »