Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

P.D. Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ696

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Petitioner has assailed the proceedings pending against him before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short the A.C.M.M.) titled as State v. Surender & Ors., emanating from case FIR No. 700/84, P.S. Daryaganj, which was registered on 14th September, 1984. 2. In order to appreciate the challenge let us have a quick glance to the facts of this case. It is the case of the prosecution that a secret information was received that the furnace oil Tankers which come to Indra Prastha Power Station, Ring Road from Shakur Basti Depot of Burma Shell (Bharat Petroleum) are not entirely emptied by the accused persons. They in collusion with the staff of the power house take away large quantity of furnace oil which they in turn sell in the black market. On receipt of this information, raid was conducted. During aid it transpired that two Tankers came to Indra Prastha Power Station. On checking up it was found that after these Tankers emptied the further oil in Tank...

All India Mobile Zoo Owners and Animal Welfare Association Vs. U.O.i a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi449

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents have been heard or some time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, in view of the subsequent developments, is confining his prayer in the writ petition to prayer D only, which is in the following terms:- 'Issue a writ of mandamus directing payment of adequate compensation of Rs. 15-20 lacs in the event of the closure of the Zoo in implementation of the rejection order or upon surrendering the animals.' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the challenge to the order, rejecting the recognition of their Mobile Zoos under Section 38(H) of the Wild Life Act, had failed, petitioners were left with no other alternative but to surrender the animals. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this has been so recorded in the order dated 19.5.1998, wherein it was agreed that animals would be surrendered before the respective Chief Wild Life Wardens of the 3...

K.K. Gupta Vs. New High Flying Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The complainant, named above, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the complainant had purchased tickets from opposite party-1 covering the routes from Delhi-Bombay-Dubai-Muscat-Cairo-Lagos-Cairo-Muscat-Dubai-Delhi, of Gulf Airlines, on 26.10.1991 after paying a sum of Rs. 23,500/- for the same. It is the case of the complainant that he contacted the Egypt Airlines at Lagos, Nigeria on 30.10.1991 for confirmation of return journey from Lagos, but he was informed by the Egypt Airlines that the said tickets did not bear the stamp/seal of the issuing office at the required portion of the tickets and were probably stolen or fake and as such refused to confirm the reservation of the complainant for the return journey. The complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 as well as his own family through fax but despite the same opposite party No. 1 failed to send...

Gujarat Steel Tubes Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT147TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., praying for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide Final Order Nos. 638-639/2000-B, dated 25.04.2000.2. The applicants under their letter dated 25.07.2000 have requested to restore their appeal to the file if deemed fit, to set aside the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise confirming demand of duty and imposing penalties. The Applicants have submitted that, under their letter dated 17.04.2000, they had requested for adjournment of the hearing scheduled to be held on 25.04.2000. In support of their contention, they have enclosed a copy of the said request along with photocopy of the Postal Department in token of having sent that letter. They have also submitted that demand was issued to them invoking Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rule and as per the Supreme Court decision, liability for duty does not survive for want of saving clause. Shri Ashok Kumar, Id. DR fairly l...

Forbes Gokak Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT796TriDel

1. These appeals have come up before this Larger Bench on a reference made by the West Regional Bench at Mumbai, evidenced by order No.CI/204-05/WZB/2000 dated 30-3-2000. The question for consideration is the classification of glass moulds and gaskets used by the appellant in the manufacture of ophthalmic lenses of hard resin.2. In the appellant's own case for an earlier period, the same issue was considered by a Bench of this Tribunal in the decision reported as Forbes Gokak Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 801. Issues dealt with by this Tribunal in that case were whether grinding and polishing of ophthalmic blanks into glass moulds amounts to manufacture, whether the goods are known in the market as glass moulds and whether the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 84.80 or under Chapter Heading 70.15 of the Central Excise Tariff. On the first question the Tribunal opined that the product which comes out after grinding and polishing is a p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT146TriDel

1. The revenue filed these appeals against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit in respect of explosives used in the mines for obtaining lime-stone for the manufacture of cement was allowed.2. Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the explosives are used in the mines which are not part of the factory.Therefore, the benefit of Modvat credit, as an input cannot be granted to the explosives. He submits that the explosives are used for blasting in the lime-stone mines, which are not part of factory as defined under Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act. He, therefore, relies upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v. C.C.E. reported in 2000 (38) RLT 111 and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that the Modvat credit on explosives in the mines is not available. He, therefore, prays that the appeals be allowed.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on b...

Esjay Gems Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT831TriDel

1. The appellant M/s. Esjay Gems, Bombay filed Bill of Entry No. 288 dated 10-4-1990 for clearance of Synthetic Industrial Diamond Power weighing 14000 carats net, valued at CIF US $ 1400 at the rate of US $ 0.10 per carat. The sizes of Synthetic Industrial Diamond Power marked on the packages were found as under :- According to the department the rate per carat of the goods was too low in comparison to official price list dated 2-4-90 circulated by the supplier namely M/s. Gemmata NV. Prices quoted in the official price list are as follows :- 2. The Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay who adjudicated the proceedings after taking into consideration of the submissions made by the party and an evidence placed on record, determined the total value of the goods taking the rate of 0.20 US $ per carat.3. Aggrieved by the said order the party has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. When the matter was called Shri N. Kothari, Prop, of the appellant appeared in person and referred to the ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. B.T. Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT120TriDel

1. This Reference Application has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh for referring a point of law to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The following question of law has been formulated by the Commissioner for reference: "Whether failure to make enquiries about traders and failure to verify antecedents of parties who issued Gate Passes does not tantamount to failure to satisfy himself about the identity and address of the manufacturer or supplier which is requirement of law in Explanation to Rule 173Q(1)(bb) and therefore, whether the Tribunal is not unjustified in setting aside the order of imposition of penalty".3. When the matter was called, none was present for the Respondents despite notice.4. The matter was thereafter proceeded with after hearing the ld. JDR Shri Ravindra Babu.5. Ld. JDR submits that the impugned order which was considered by the Tribunal related to impositi...

Khanna Petrochem Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT183TriDel

1. This is an application for rectification of mistake apparent from the face of the final order No. 861/98-C, dated 16.09.1998.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the applicants who had requested for adjournment as the issue involved has been referred to the Larger Bench which has heard the matter already and the decision is expected any time. Learned DR Shri S.P. Rao, informed the Bench that the Larger Bench decision in the case of C.C.v. Automats (India), 2000 (119) E.L.T. 34 (Tribunal) has been pronounced. We, therefore, heard Shri S.P. Rao, learned DR, and perused the record.3. The Tribunal vide final order No. 861 /98-C, dated 16.09.1998 has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue by disallowing the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 01.03.1986 in respect of excisable goods cleared by the applicants during the period 01.04.1992 to 21.05.1992 holding that the benefit of Clause (b) of First Proviso to para 4 of the notification was not av...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chamundeswari Steel Rolling

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT171TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether the exemption under Notfn. No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 is available to the finished products made out of waste and scrap purchased from the market.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s. Chamundeswari Steel Rolling Mills. In fact all the notices issued to them for hearing have been received back from the postal authorities undelivered. In view of this, we heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR and perused the records. Ld. DR submitted that it is not disputed by the Respondents that they had purchased Bazar scrap for manufacturing finished goods; that the Additional Collector had accepted their contention without any basis and without any document in support of their contention that the Bazar scrap was in the form of bars, rods, angles, etc. He further mentioned that the issue has been settled by the Tribunal in a number of decisions. He referred specifically to the decision i...