Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 13 of about 265 results (0.020 seconds)Frick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT156TriDel
1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-12-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, in which the appellate authority has upheld the order dated 21-10-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Faridabad denying the respondent the Modvat credit of Rs. 29,334/- availed on inputs against the invoices on which the Serial No. was not pre-printed but was handwritten. The original authority had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3000/- on the party.2. The matter is listed today for admission and stay Shri Hari Shanker, Advocate appearing for the appellants has relied on the decision of Id.Single Member of the CEGAT in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v.C.C.E. Jaipur -1998 (103) E.L.T. 77 (T). In this order it is held that though the pre-printing of serial No. of the invoices is mandatory in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 52(A), but the credit cannot be denied on this ground alone if the department is not inclined to collect duty once again...
Tag this Judgment!Vinati Organics Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC848
1. Appellants herein are the manufacturers of Iso-Butyl Benzene (hereinafter referred to as IBB) in India. IBB is used in the manufacture of drugs. On 30-8-1993, appellants collectively styled as "Isobutyl Benzene Manufacturers Association" applied for Antidumping investigation against imports of IBB from China. On 30-8-1994 a provisional Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 13,089 per tonne was recommended.On 27th July, 1995 a final Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 10,634 was recommended by the Designated Authority. Above recommendations, for provisional Antidumping duty and final Anti-dumping duty were duly notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce. On 1-11-1996, appellant No. 1 filed an application for a mid-term review on the ground that the Antidumping duty imposed was not sufficient enough to prevent injury to the domestic industry. Pursuant to that application the Designated Authority, after further investigation into the entire situation, recommended an enhanced duty of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Noorani Textile Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT744TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-9-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur is under challenge. The Commissioner has passed the order as under :- "I have gone through the case. The provisions of Rule 57 F(4) are clearly independent and self-contained Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-86 is also an independent notification and self-contained. The benefit conferred under Rule 57 F(4) can not be curtailed by relying upon the Notification No. 214/86-C.E. as has been done in the impugned order. If any such linkage was envisaged the same would have been mentioned in the Rule. Moreover, there is also a lot of merit in the submissions that the two units are not separate and should be treated as one. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.2. We have heard Dr. Ravinder Babu, JDR for the appellants/Revenue and Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the party.3. It is admitted in the brief facts of the case filed by the Revenue t...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Stainless Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT428TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 31-10-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order held that the appellants mis-declared the exported products with regard to their chemical composition and passed the following order : "In view of the above findings, I order confiscation of the export products. However, since these goods are not available for confiscation, as these have already been exported against an ETC Bond and Bank guarantee, I impose a penalty of Rs. 30 lakh (Thirty lakhs only), in lieu of confiscation, under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lakhs only) under Section 114 ibid, for the acts and omissions on the part of the noticees. The aforesaid amounts of Rs. 30,00,000.00 (thirty lakhs only) should be realised forthwith by enforcing the ETC Bond and the Bank guarantee executed by the Noticees. I also order that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suncity Art Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT104TriDel
1. Shri L.P. Asthana, Id. Advocate submitted that the appellants entered into negotiations with a firm in Holland for export of wooden furniture (artware) to be manufactured according to the specifications of the buyer; that the buyer was very particular that the furniture should have Gideon colour which was used on their furniture all over the world; that for obtaining this colour, they were instructed by the buyer to obtain Paraffin wax and other finishing materials from M/s.Gideon Wasen Beitsen; that accordingly they applied to DGFT and obtained advance licence for import of, inter alia, paraffin wax. They imported one consignment of paraffin wax and declared the same in the Bill of Entry. The Id. Advocate emphasised that even in the invoice issued by the foreign supplier the product was described as paraffin wax; that, however, on chemical examination the product was described as dark brown coloured pasty mass composed essentially of waxy matter, volatile organic solvents and colo...
Tag this Judgment!All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation and anr. Vs. Press Co ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)120; AIR2000Delhi409; 87(2000)DLT422; 2000(57)DRJ393
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. This writ petition raise a short but interesting question regarding the number of terms for which a member can be denominated to the Press Council. The answer to this questions turns on the interpretation of SubSection (7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). SubSection 7 of Section 6 of the Act reads as follows: 'A retiring member shall be eligible for renomination for not more than one term.' Petitioners contend that the provision bars more than two successive terms, while the stand of the Council is that the total number of terms available to a member are two terms of three years each. 2. The facts culminating in the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner No.1 before the Court is the All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation and Shri Harbhajan Singh, who is the Editor of the Indian Observer, is petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 being an Association of persons within subsection (b) of Clause (3) of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Faizu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ5061; 2000(56)DRJ487
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and was sentenced to one year's R.I. under Section 363 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC. Brief facts, according to the prosecution are as under : 2. On 29.5.1975, Smt. Rukia filed FIR in which she alleged that her daughter Razia Begum was missing and on inquiry she was informed that some Yusuf and Suleman and her daughter were seen with Faizu, who is the resident of a jhuggi nearby. She also mentioned that she had the suspicion that her daughter has been taken away by the appellant Faizu. On investigations, she was recovered from the appellant Faizu. Her statement was recorded and she was sent for medical examination. Before the learned M.M., Shahdara she stated that she was given inducement by the appellant that she will be given some clothes. Another lady, namely, Smt. Daropati also persuaded her to accompany Faizu. 3. The appellant took h...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ5060; 2000(55)DRJ85A
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.9.1977 by which he was convicted under section 368 and was sentenced to 1-1/2 year's of imprisonment. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under : 2. According to the prosecution on 21.2.1975, Brij Mohan of Amod village Along with others, conspired and kidnapped Manto a boy of 2-1/2 years son of Rajinder Prashad from his lawful guardianship with a view to extract Rs. 10,000/- from Rajinder Prashad father of the boy. The actual kidnapping was carried out by Birju and Kailash. Birju and Kailash are absconding. Manto the kidnapped boy, confined to Rori village from 21.2.1975 to 23.2.1975, was recovered from the house of Bhagwan Devi. She is the mother in law of appellant Dharampal's brother. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of the prosecution case. I have carefully examined the evidence on record and in my considered opinion no in...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Dayal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT502(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner challenges legality or order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue on a revision petition filed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (in short the 'Commissioner') whereby it was held that present petitioner was involved as abettor to smuggling activities.2. Factual position giving rise to the present writ petition, in a nutshell, is as follows.Additional Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of 35 gold biscuits with foreign markings of 24 carat purity weighing 4081 gms. and valued at Rs. 15,38,537/- and Rs. 19,18,070/- on the IV and MV rates respectively brought by one Harpal Singh by concealing the articles in specially made cavities of a Jacket which he wore beneath the shirt and banian. The thread and the Jacket used for concealing the gold and the Maruti Car No. DL-3C-D-5875 brought by one Mahesh Chauhan and Rajesh Sahdev to the IGI Airport to carry the gold were also directed to be confiscated...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Usha Sodhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi405
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Cleavage in views of two Division Benches of this Court is the reason for the reference made to the Full Bench. Only question that needs determination is whether a Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to the High Courts of Lahore, Punjab & Haryana and Delhi High Courts ( in Short Letters Patent) read with Section 5(1) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 ( in short High Court Act) is maintainable from a decision of a single Judge of the High Court when exercising jurisdiction under. Section 11 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (in short, the Act). 2. In M/s Banwari Lal & Sons v. UOI 1972 (2) 2nd 521, a Division Bench held that decision of the single Judge was appealable. It was held that the decision of the single Judge was a judgment for the purpose of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. But, later on, in Banwari Lal & Sons v. Union of India AIR 1981 DEL 366, another Division Bench held that the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!