Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Guljag Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT743TriDel

"I have gone through the case papers and the submissions made by the appellants. I find there is considerable merit in the submissions made by the appellant relating to Explanation II Section 4A. A plain reading of the wording of the said Section can lead to only one conclusion, namely, the same comes into play only when more than one MRP is declared on the same packaging and the same cannot be invoked to cover cases of different packaging meant for different class of buyers showing separate MRP. In view of the above facts, the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly is set aside".2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder. During the period 12-1-1998 to 18-2-1998, they had two MRPs for their products, "Wheel" Detergent Powder, packed in two different packaging of one kg. each. On one MRP shown was Rs. 17/- per kg. and on the other which was meant for Canteen Supply, the MRP shown was Rs. 16.15 per kg....

Bhilai Engineering Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT91TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., the issue involved is whether Roller Tables, Mould Oscillator and Tundish are classifiable as continuous casting machines under sub heading 8454.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or as parts under sub Heading 8454.90 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri S.K. Bagaria, Ld. Advocate, submitted that M/s. SAIL were setting up continuous slab casting project at their Bokaro Steel Plants (BSP); that order for Roller Tables was placed upon the Appellants by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. who had received the order from M/s. BSP; that Roller Table consists of required number of Rollers with bearings/bearing rings, roller frame structures, A.C. Gear Motor, etc.; that the other parts of such roller table are dummy bar, disconnecting roller, weighing roller, movable roller table, Hydraulic cylinder, Foundation frame etc; that roller table has its own drive arrangement and hyd...

Dr. Aparna Sehgal and ors. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by the Homeopathic doctors appointed on contract basis by the National Capital Territory of Delhi Administration. The applicants 20 in number are seeking parity in scale of pay and allowances, leave, increments, maternity leave and also benefits of service conditions as are admissible to other regular Medical Officers (Homoeopathy) [MO(H) for short] from the date of their appointment and to treat them as having continued in service from the date of their first appointment ignoring the break of one or two days given in their service, till regular appointments are made to the post.Applicants have also prayed that in the event of the post of MO(H) being filled by regular method, regular recruits shall first be posted against vacant posts and after all the vacant posts are filled, should the regular recruits replace the present applicants, such replacement shall be on the basis of lastcome first go, Applicants have also sought age relaxation to the extent o...

Virinder Bhatia and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against block assessment orders under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and .seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24th Aug., 1995, and were concluded on 28th Aug., 1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses, etc.Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order, 2. The first common ground of contention of the assessee in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under Section 132 of the Act were improper, invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.}/Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Act. It is also contended that since the s...

Manohar Singh Chadda Vs. M/S. Sheetal Sweets

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)671; 2000(2)ARBLR584(Delhi)

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The case set out in the plaint is that the parties were erstwhile partners in the firm 'Sheetal Sweets'. In April 1999, after mutual negociations between the two partners they decided that the firm would be dissolved. It is not disputed that two Dissolution Deeds, dated 22nd April 1999 and 29th April 1999 were executed. The caveat or demurer of the Defendant is that the second Deed was signed by him by mistake/oversight. It is his contention that this Deed was one of many papers and in this manner his signatures were obtained thereon by fraud. The plaintiffs' grievance is that despite the execution of these two Deeds the Defendant has set up his own business under the name of Sheetal Sweets. The Plaintiff has thereforee prayed for an injunction restraining the Defendant from carrying on business under this trade name. Whilst this allegation has not been denied by the Defendant, it is his case that there was no agreement between the parties which restricted the...

Durga Prasad Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)728; 2000(56)DRJ368; 2000(70)ECC403

ORDERCrl. R. No. 123/20001. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the revision at the stage of admission itself. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision are that a charge-sheet under Section 20/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') was filed against the petitioner and others. On a consideration of the materials collected by the prosecuting agency, Shri R.K. Sharma, Special Judge, Delhi discharged the petitioner vide orders dated 2.1.1997. After recording evidence in the case, the case was transferred to the Court of Mr. Naipal Singh, Special Judge, Delhi. By the order dated 13.3.2000 Mr. Naipal Singh reviewed the order dated 2.1.1997 passed by his predecessor on the ground that the order of discharge was patently illegal. He, thereforee, set aside the order of discharge and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has come up in revision be...

State Bank of India Vs. Indian Utility Products and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi30

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed this suit inter alias alleging that it is a corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act No. XXIII of 1955 and has its branches, amongst others, at Paharganj, New Delhi. S. K. Batura is the Branch Manager of Paharganj branch and is competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute suit under the State Bank of India Regulations, 1955 and the notification(s) issued thereunder. Defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 firm and on their approaching the said branch of the plaintiff-bank, lock and key loan facility (against stock and machinery) of Rs. 50,000/- was sanctioned to them. Inconsideration thereof, defendant No. 2 executed agreement of hypothecation dated 16th February, 1970, the terms and conditions whereof are incorporated in para No. 5 of the plaint. One of the terms was that interest would be charged @ 1 1/4% above State Bank of India advance rate with minimum of 8-3/4% per annum to be calculated on dail...

Jindal Menthol and Investments Ltd. Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]106CompCas473(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgul, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner has prayed that interim orders be passed restraining the respondents from selling, parting with possession or transferring the waste heat recovery system equipment, leased by the petitioner to the respondents and has further sought relief due to the defaults of the respondents in repayment and, thereforee, sought permission for the receiver to be appointed by this Court to take over the possession of the said equipment which was given on lease to the respondents under lease agreement dated 24-2-1993. This application has been resisted by the respondents/lessees by contending that the appointment of a receiver is hit by the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act'). The respondent in particular has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of Sou...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rotomould (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT235TriDel

1. This appeal came before a bench of two Members on 2-6-1999. That bench found some of the decisions rendered by benches of coordinate jurisdiction to be conflicting. Consequently, it was placed before the President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide the issue. Pursuant to that order the matter came before a bench of three Members. That bench had the benefit of a decision rendered by a bench of three Members on the same issue in the case of CCE, Pune v. Sanjay Founders Private Limited -1999 (34) RLT 727 Learned Counsel representing the assessee then submitted that the Larger Bench of three Members while disposing of the case reported in 1999 (34) RLT 725 did not take into consideration the principles of law stated by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mathra Prasad & Sons v. State of Punjab - AIR 1962 SC 745. On this submission it was felt that the issue should be placed before a Larger Bench of five Members. That is how the appeal has come before this bench.2. T...

Jyoti Carpet Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT509TriDel

1. These are two applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 21,95,458.777- and equal amount of penalty imposed on M/s Jyoti Carpet Industries and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 173Q, and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the Proprietor, Ms. Jyotsana Sharma, under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant, submitted that the applicants are purchasing non-woven fabrics in roll form and are cutting them to sizes as per the required dimensions of the floor of a particular car; after cutting, edge bonding is done with the help of sewing machine and then these are cleared after packing. He submitted that the show cause notice has been issued and the demand has been confirmed for the extended period treating the activity as manufacture and falling under Heading 5703.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the Tribunal in the case of Trans-Asia Carpets Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 135 has held that conversion by cutting ...