Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Chuni Lal Anand Vs. Dr. Narendra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ526

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the present appeal, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 26,500/- against the defendants/respondents herein. Suit was based on the averments that the plaintiff was a partner of M/s. Anand Metal Works carrying on business in C-143, Industrial Area, Naraina, New Delhi which was owned by the plaintiff and his sons Subhash Chander, Gulshan Kumar and Ashok Kumar in equal shares. Defendant No. 2 was having a garment manufacturing unit. He shifted his unit to C.143, Industrial Area, Naraina, New Delhi. During his continuance there the defendant No. 2 succeeded in having his own industrial plot No. C-31, Sector VI at Noida (U.P.). He wanted to construct his own industrial shed on this plot. He requested the plaintiff to advance him loan for this purpose so that after the construction he is able to shift his fabricating unit to Noida. The plaintiff agreed to his request and advanced him lean of Rs. 20,000/- provided the defendant No. 1, fa...

L.R. Gupta and Another. Vs. Singapore Airlines Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The brief facts of this complaint, filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are that the complainants purchased confirmed tickets from the opposite party for their return journey from Singapore to New Delhi by Flight No. SQ 408, leaving Singapore on 24.5.1992 and also got their request for a wheel chair recorded on the computer at the time of booking their tickets. Before leaving for the Singalore Airport, the complainants once again contacted and requested the commercial staff of the opposite party through computer as well as orally to provide one wheel chair at the Airport to enable the complainant No. 2 to board the aircraft, which request was duly confirmed by the opposite party. 2. It is alleged by the complainants that despite confirmation and assurance by opposite party in this regard, no wheel chair was provided to the complainants at the Singapore Airport, as a result of which while proceeding f...

M/S. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture V.P. Sugar falling under Heading 17.01 with Molasses as its by-product falling under Heading 17.03. They availed modvat credit on the inputs as well as the capital goods under the provisions of Rule 57A and Rule 57Q respectively as per the declarations filed by them as provided under the relevant rules. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sitapur issued them a show cause notice dt. 15.4.97, inter alia calling upon to show cause as to why the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.1,99,775.44 should not be denied to them in respect of the items reflected at S1.Nos.1 to 18 in the Annexure to the show cause notice since the invoices in respect of these items had been issued by the consigners prior to six months from the date of availment of modvat credit in violation of the second proviso to Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On considering the reply of the party, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sitapur Division vide his order dt. 30.7...

Melton India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT701TriDel

"Whether Modvat credit of duty paid on (1) Ceramic Evaporation Boats and (2) Boron Nitrate Suspension, utilised in manufacture of metallised plastic film is admissible under Rule 57A as inputs?" 2. M/s. Melton India Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Metallised Polyester and other plastic films. As per the appellants in the process of Metallising the polyester films, refractory ceramic evaporation boats are used for evaporating the aluminium wire and also Boron Nitrate suspension is used as coating material over the boat section.The process of vacuum metallising, as explained by the appellants, is undertaken in the vacuum chamber of the met-alliser where the plastic film is coated with an even or uniform layer of aluminium. The ceramic evaporation boats are used for the reason that they are having the property of resisting the temperature upto 1500 degree C under vacuum.The plastic rolls are loaded from one side of the vacuum chamber and the aluminium wire is continuously fed in f...

Kanohar Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT123TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 05.01.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods was denied on the ground that intimation for installation of the machine was given late.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants filed the necessary declaration under Rule 57T of the Rules for availing the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods. He submits that he received the goods, in question, in February and March, 1996 and intimation was sent to the revenue authorities in this respect. The machine was installed in the factory on 30.06.1996 and the appellants, through post, intimated the revenue authorities regarding installation of the machine on 01.07.1996. He submits that, thereafter on 18-10-1996, the appellants against informed the revenue authorities in respect of installation of the machines, in question. He submits that show cause notice was ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ace Build (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT84TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the above reference application for reference of the following questions of law stated to have arisen out of Final Order No. 266/99-B1, dated 10.03.1999 [1999 (107) E.L.T. 308 (Tri.)] passed by the CEGAT : "1. Whether the cutting, punching of holes, bending, assembling, welding, bolting etc. of the various raw materials namely angles, channels, sheets, flats etc., as a result of which different and distinct items namely trussess, purlines, columns and other steel structures come into existence, amounts to manufacture as enshrined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not? 2. Is the Hon'ble CEGAT not bound by and required to follow the law already settled on the issue by a Larger Bench or an equivalent bench of CEGAT? 3. Is the Hon'ble Tribunal not required to refer the matter to the Larger Bench as there have been conflicting decisions on the issue involved? [Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal delivered in the case of Moh...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. K.C. Alloys and Steel Castings

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC324

1. In all these appeals, preferred by Revenue, the common issue involved is whether runners and risers, emerging during the process of manufacture of ingots are eligible for exemption from payment of duty of excise under notification No. 49/97-CE dated 1-8-1997 as waste and scrap.2. Briefly stated that the facts are that all the respondents manufacture ingots from induction furnace and were paying duty on the basis of annual production capacity under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. During the process of manufacture of ingots runners and risers are obtained which are consumed captively by them for manufacture of ingots. Show cause notices were issued to all the respondents for demanding central excise duty on runners and risers as the benefit of notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16-3-1995 was not available to the units working under Annual Production Capacity Scheme.The Assistant Commissioner, under various orders confirmed the demand of duty on the respondents, holding that runner...

M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Rajeev Bakshi Proprietor, M/S. Ganesh Exports

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1137; 88(2000)DLT300; 2001(74)ECC312; 2001(2)RAJ529

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In O.M.P., the petitioner filed this application, interalia, alleging that on being approached by the respondent the petitioner sanctioned packing credit limit of Rs.100 lakhs COD as also packing credit of 5 Kgs. gold under the Domestic Tariff Area Scheme. Respondent and petitioner also entered into an agreement for export of jewellery. It is alleged that the respondent was supplied 2 kgs gold on loan on 25th April, 1994 @ Rs. 4.30 lakhs per kg (notional international price) of the total amount of Rs. 8,60,000/ against contract No. M-0027 and 3, Kgs gold on 26th April 1994 also at the said rate of the total amount of Rs. 12,90,000/- against contract No. M-0029 by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the respondent failed to export gold jewellery against said 5 kgs. gold. As a result of failure to export gold jewellery the respondent exposed the petitioner to custom duty and penalty inasmuch as the gold given to him was duty free and was to be exported after ...

Sanjiv Gupta Vs. High Court of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ13

ORDERCW 5601/2000 & CM. 8632/20001. Rule. 2. The petitioner was provisionally enrolled as a 'Trainee Advocate' pursuant to the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called the Training Rules). 3. In V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India and Anr., : [1999]1SCR1048 the Supreme Court framed one of several questions for its consideration as follows: 'Whether the impugned rules are ultra virus the rule making power of the Bar Council of India as available to it under the provisions of the Act.'4. In paragraph 29 of the Report, it was held as follows: 'The inevitable result is that the impugned rules fail and must be held to be still born being beyond the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. Point No. 1, thereforee, has to be answered in affirmative in favor of the writ petitioners and the appellant in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13755 of 1996 and against the respondent Bar Council of India in the writ petitions and which is also the appellant in appeal arising o...

L.K. JaIn and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ259; 2000(55)DRJ836

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. By this application, the complainant seeks permission to be imp leaded as party/respondent in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that since a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order taking cognizance of the case, it would be complainant's right to be heard because he is the affected party, who, in the first instance, filed the complaint. He draws my attention to Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. : 1985CriLJ1521 , where in the Supreme Court has held that: 'Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the First Information Report lodged by him is clearly recognized by the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 154, Sub-section (2) of Section 157 and Sub-section (2) (ii) of Section 173, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing that th...