Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 22 of about 277 results (0.023 seconds)Orient Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT528TriDel
1. By the impugned Order-in-Original, Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut confirmed duty demand of Rs. 1,31,99,260/- apart from imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant. The duty demand arise as a result of disallowing Modvat credit for contravention of Rule 57U read with provisions of Rule 57F(20)/(21) and Rule 57S (5)/(6) of the Central Excise Rules.2. The facts leading to the impugned order briefly are as under: The appellants who are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1966 are manufacturers of ceramic glazed tiles at Plot No. 8, Industrial area Sikandra-bad, UP. In 1997, the appellants set up another industrial unit at the adjoining plot and obtained separate excise registration on 5-2-1997. Appellants have referred to the unit at Plot No. 8 as Unit No. I and unit set up in the adjoining plot as Unit No.II. To begin with both the units were having different entry as well as exit gates. In June, 1997, the appellants by their letter dated 12-6-1997 requested th...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh Bahl Vs. Y.K. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi79
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner/plaintiff filed Suit No. 3202/91 in this Court. This was suit for specific performance of agreement dated 10.10.1988. Respondent/defendant was issued notice which was duly served and he appeared in the suit. Interim order in favor of the petitioner/plaintiff was passed restraining the respondent/defendant from transferring, alienating or disposing of the suit property in any manner whatsoever. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the District court was raised from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 5 lacs and all the suits which were pending in this Court up to the value of Rs. 5 lacs were transferred to District Court. Accordingly, this suit was also transferred to District Court and it was marked to Sh. I.S. Mehta, learned Additional District Judge. It was listed before him on 10.5.1994. However as he was on leave on that date, it was adjourned to 18.5.1994. On 18.5.1994, Court notices were issued to both the parties for 8.11.1994. On 8.11.1994 also nobody appeared. After recordi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ajanta Tubes Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT674; 2000(56)DRJ519
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule in the petition had been issued on 2.4.1992. The petitioner by the present writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus or direction of like nature, directing the respondents to pay interest @ 17.5% on quarterly rests on the amount of Rs. 39,27,521/- from 8.10.1986 till date of its refund on 25.9.1989. The petitioner also seeks a direction for production of all the records relating to its claim for refund terminating in the order bearing No. 5-6-C-8110/86 dated 30.10.1986. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had, imported Prime Hot Rolled steel coils. These were cleared vide will of entry filed on 3.10.1986. It was the petitioner's case that customs duty was livable @ 14% ad-valorem based on the benefit of exemption notification. Respondents, however, recovered excess duty amounting to Rs. 39,27,521/-. The petitioner moved an application for refund, which claim was rejected by the Assistant Collec-tor. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector of C...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Mahabir Singh Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT496; 2000(56)DRJ362
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in jail since 31st July, 1997 and that throughout investigation he was not taken into custody. He submits that at the highest this is a case of mistaken identity and that firing was resorted to after they suspected that a bullet had been fired from the car which in fact resulted in injuring one of the policemen. He further submits that looking at the circumstances of the case the person sought to be arrested was a dreaded terrorist who had no quams of using weapons. In the given circumstances he submits that the desire was only to perform duty without exterior motive. He further submits that 12 witnesses have been given up, 44 have been examined, only formal witnesses remain. The trial will, in no way, be affected if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.2. The learned Counsel for the State submits that this is a case of unprovoked brutal firing with an inte...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kishan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4090; 2000(56)DRJ619
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 1293/91 dated 17.3.1993. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:-On the night of 29.12.1990, Sub-Inspector of Police Rajiv Rattan, who was posted in Police Station Town Hall was on his round Along with Constable Avtar Singh. At Kauria Bridge they met Constable Parkash Veer who also joined them in patrolling. At Kauria Bridge they received information that one person was present with poppy husk powder at Hardayal Library. A raiding party was formed. Ramesh Chander Garg, the then Station House Officer was telephonically requested to arrive at the spot. One Raju Pandey, as a public witness, was also joined in the raiding party. The members of the raiding party proceeded towards Hardayal Library and intereepled the appellant Radha Kishan, who was present at south west corner of the library and was having a plasti...
Tag this Judgment!Eternit Everest Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC480
Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals v. C.C., Visakhapatnam reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) (sic) has held that where the parties had purchased the goods from MMTC on high-sea sales basis, the transaction value, (for the purpose of assessment for levy of customs duty) in such cases, has to be taken on the basis of the revised invoice value submitted by M/s. MMTC to the appellants (Importers).2. This issue whether the prices paid by the canalising agency (MMTC) to the foreign supplier be regarded as transaction value for the purpose of customs valuation or the price charged by the canalising agency from its buyer on the high-sea sales basis (which includes the service charges of the canalising agency) be the transaction value for the purpose of customs valuation came up for consideration again before the Bench "A" of this Tribunal in Appeal No. C/3278/90-A. The ld. Bench on hearing the submissions of the appellant observed that there are various aspects arising for the considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Usha Engg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT73TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the product - Bus Duct. Relying upon the HSN Explanatory Notes and after referring to the product description, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has observed that the goods in dispute were not insulated and held that the goods were not classifiable under Heading No. 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff and were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 8538.00 He also observed that. The classification under that sub-heading had already been approved from time to time by the Department.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing has been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks "left without address".3. As the matter is old, in which Order-in-Original was passed in the year 1994, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after haring Shri A.K. Jain, JDR.4. It is an admitted position that the bus ducts, ...
Tag this Judgment!Amita Singh Vs. Air India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)16; 2000(56)DRJ300; [2000(87)FLR184]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner in this petition has assailed the decision contained in impugned letter dated 10.9.1997 whereby her request for grant of voluntary retirement has been rejected and it is mentioned in that letter that respondent No.1/management has accepted her resignation w.e.f. 10.7.1997. Petitioner is not interested in the job and that is why she had submitted request dated 13.6.1997 for relieving her from duties. However she wants to be relieved as having voluntary retired from service whereas her request is treated as resignation and accepted as such. 2. The genesis of the dispute has the following factual background. Petitioner joined respondent No.1 on 20.9.1974 as a Traffic Assistant. She was promoted from time to time and last promotion which she received was to the post of Traffic Supervisor. Having served for over a period of 23 years in various capacities, petitioner submitted letter dated 13.6.1997 in which she wrote that despite her best efforts to strike a...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Chand Vs. S.K. Sarvaria and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ60
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition raises short but interesting point of rest judicata or right to raise industrial dispute by the petitioner-workman after his writ petition challenging the same action was dismissed by this Court. The facts which give rise to the aforesaid question may be narrated first. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor with respondent No. 2 - Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as DTC, for short) on 15th June, 1984. On 13th November, 1985 he was served with charge-sheet for non-issuance of tickets to passengers after collecting due fare from them. Three charges were leveled against the petitioner. Enquiry was held and Enquiry Officer submitted his report giving the findings that all the charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved. Show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. At this stage, petitioner filed the writ peti-tion being Civil Writ Petition No. 1853 of 1988 which was dismissed (this fact was not disclosed in the present...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Nayar Vs. the Chairman, Ongc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ427
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition retired from service of ONGC/respondent No.1 on 31.12.1987 on reaching the age of superannuation. Petitioner joined as Assistant Locust Technical Officer in the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage on 12.4.1951. This was a department under Central Government. Petitioner changed his cadre of service from technical to non-technical on 24.5.1952 and was absorbed in the same department as temporary Upper Division Clerk in the same pay scale. On 18.7.1956, he joined Directorate of Oil and Natural Gas, a Government service under Ministry of Natural Resources and Scientific Research, as Senior Assistant. Petitioner claims that his joining this department was treated as transfer from the previous department, and thereforee, petitioner was considered to have been transferred from one Government department to another and as he had more than 3 years service in the previous department, he acquired quasi-permanent status in t...
Tag this Judgment!