Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments

J.M.P. Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT233TriDel

1. By the impugned order ld. Collector confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 5,42,750.67, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 2,83,905.00. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle Parts and M.C.I. Inserts. It was alleged that the appellants did not file any classification list or did not hold any licence for the manufacture of MCI Inserts which were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7302.90. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the assessee asking him to explain as to why the MCI Inserts should not be classified under Chapter sub-heading 7302.90 and why duty should not be demanded from them and why seized goods should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed. In reply the appellants sought provisional release of the seized goods. The goods were released provisionally after the appellants executing...

Vidhya Packaging Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT631TriDel

1. These are connected appeals. These are virtually cross appeals - one at the instance of the assessee and other by the Revenue. We are disposing of these appeals by this common order.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows. Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Film & Yarn. The period covered by this proceeding is October, 1995 to March, 1996. Assessee was declaring the price prior to 1-4-94 and was selling the goods at the declared price. After 1-4-94, they were having the invoices wherein price realised was below the value declared earlier.On 17-7-95 also, assessee again filed a declaration before the Department showing the price of the goods. The prices realised by the assessee under the invoices for the sale between the period October, 1995 to March, 1996 were compared with the said declaration filed on 17-7-95. The price realised as per the invoice was lesser than the price declared. So, show cause notice was issued on 2-...

J.C.T. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Captioned ROM Application was argued by Shri Vinod Agarwal, ld.Advocate. He submits that in Para 6 of the impugned Final Order No.A/941/97-NB(SM) dated 28-11-1997, the Tribunal had relied on its earlier decision in Netplasts Limited v. CCE, Kanpur 1996 (87) E.L.T.434 holding that Rule 57G(4) required the production of original GPIs for taking Modvat credit. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the said Final Order had not taken note of the Board's Circular No. 44/86 which was operative during the period in question under which photo copies of gate passes were valid documents evidencing payment of Excise Duty.Since the aforesaid Board's Circular was binding on the Department, the Department could not have taken a contrary stand in support of the said allegation. Ld. Counsel relied in this connection on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Paper Boards Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.). He therefore submits that an error has thus crept into the Final Order which may be rectified a...

Pushpa Sharma and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)532

ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1. This is second round of litigation. Petitioners had earlier filed writ petition No. 4111/91 & CW No.108/92 which were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.3.1993 giving certain directions. Certain subsequent events which have taken place thereafter have prompted the petitioners to file this writ petition. These events would be mentioned at appropriate stage while recapitulating the facts in their entirety. Let me first narrate these facts as they appear in the writ petition. 2. In April 1982, the Central Government formulated a scheme for the development of rural area particularly so as to earn their livelihood. Under that scheme, the Delhi Administration created many centers for imparting tailoring, knitting, cutting embroidery etc. for the rural women. Among other centers formulated a scheme known as Khanjhawala, Mehrauli are one of the tailoring centres and Tailoring Instructors were required to impart training to them. These Tailoring Instructors were ...

Jagdish Chander Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)846; 2000CriLJ3162; 85(2000)DLT384; 2000(56)DRJ206b

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Crl. Writ 835/97 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by Jagdish Chander Sharma, inter alia, alleging that on 1st February, 1997 at about 2.30 AM acting on the basis of specific intelligence about transportation of narcotics, the officers of DRI (Headquarters), New Delhi intercepted two trucks bearing registration Nos.-HR-29A-0705 and DL-1GA-9499 at Suraj Kund Road- Delhi Haryana border. At the time of interception truck No. HR-29A-0705 was occupied by Manoj Kumar @ Goldie, while truck No. DL-1GA-9499 by Jaspal Singh Jassa. Both these trucks were brought to I.P. Bhawan, I.P. Estate. New Delhi and search thereof resulted in recovery of 65.765 Kgs of heroin. In follow up action the house of petitioner who is alleged to be owner of truck No. HR-29A-0705, was searched on 1st February, 1997 itself but nothing incriminating was recovered there from. Statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorde...

Deepak Batra Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)805

ORDERD.K. Jain, J,1. The petitioner, who claims to have deep knowledge of pyramid energy to be applied on building structure, challenges in this writ petition a letter dated 5th July, 1991, issued by the respondent Delhi Development Authority ('DDA' for short), whereby he was asked to surrender the vacant possession of the pyramid kiosk allotted to him in the year 1981, within twenty days of the days of the date of the letter and exercise his option out of the two alternative shops offered to him in terms of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 27th October, 1989 and 8th November, 1990, and in default he was threatened with cancellation of his allotment/lease of the said kiosk and eviction there from. 2. According to the petitioner, on his application dated 27th March, 1980 for allotment of an unused kiosk situated at Malaviya Nagar Extension, New Delhi, in front of 104, DDA Flats, Kiosk- 'A' was initially allotted to him vide letter dated 19th March, 1981, on a monthly license fe...

Ajay NaraIn Vs. Aarti Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(4)ARBLR879(Delhi); 85(2000)DLT536; 2000(54)DRJ93

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Admit. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26th July, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this court vacating the ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 13th July, 1998 passed against respondents (defendants) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) whereby, they were restrained from transferring, alienating or parting with the possession of the first floor and the second floor of 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (for short suit the premises) thus allowing respondents' application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code (IA No. 417/99). Since the point involved in the appeal is very short and record has already been called, by this order we propose to dispose of the appeal itself. 3. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are: The appellant filed the suit against respondents for a decree of declaration that General Power of Attorneys (for short GPA) dated 6.12.1996, 7.10.1997 and 30.3.1998 in favor of Aarti...

Khanji Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shiptrade Inc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ588

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In a petition filed under Sections 30, 31(3), 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, following relief have been prayed for : (a) declare that the award/orders dated 21-5-1999, 29-12-1999 and 3-2-2000 are not valid in law and that the same are not enforceable. (b) Direct the arbitral tribunal to hear both the claim and the counter claim together. (c) Restrain the tribunal from proceedings with the hearing on 28-2-2000 or any other date only of the Claim filed by the respondent till the disposal of the present application. (d) Pass ad interim orders in terms of prayer. (c) above. (e) Award costs of the application. (f) Pass such further orders as the court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petition is accompanied by an application under Section 41(b) and Schedule II of the Arbitration Act, 1940, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It contains the following prayers: (a) Restrain the tribunal from pr...

Subhash Chand and anr. Vs. Indian Airlines and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ528Del

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule2. This writ petition is filed petitioner No. 2 who had worked with Indian Airlines Respondent as MT helper, helper (Engg.) helper etc. It is the case of the petitioners that they had worked on causal basis for periods ranging from 100 days to 500 days. The matter regarding regularisation of such casual workers working in Indian Airlines came up before the Division Bench and after exhaustive dealing with the problem, the writ petition being CWP No. 4113/1994 was disposed of vide judgment 3 dated May 9, 1997 giving certain directions therein. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:'In view of the above while holding the respondents action to be arbitrary in the matter of preparation of the panel of casual in the category of Helper (Engg.), Helper (Comml), Helper (MI), Helper (Stores) Driver, Helper (Canteen), Helper (Catering), Safaiwalas, Peon etc. respondents are directed to:i) engage on casual basis for its requirement either for the purpose of ad...

Ashok Kumar Tomar Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The facts, in brief, of the present complaint are that the complainant is engaged in farming activity for the purposes of earning his livelihood. He purchased 130 kgs. of rice seed (Pusa Basmati-1) from the opposite party at New Delhi on 27.5.1997, against receipt for the amount of Rs. 2,736.90. At the time of said purchase, the complainant was assured by the opposite party regarding the quality of the seed, as well as, the requisite chemical treatment already given to the seeds. It was also assured by the opposite party that the said seeds would yield good crop to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party also issued certificate of quality carrying L No. 455556 alongwith certification tag No. 489530 indicating the quality of seeds as well as the chemical treatment given. It is alleged by the complainant that when the seed packets were opened for preparing nursery for the crop, soil and other waste materials were found in the packets whic...