Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S Usha Intecontinental (India) Vs. Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT794TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the duty demand of Rs. 18,92,881.82 made on the appellant under the impugned order in Original No.9/97/CAC/CC-I dated 27.1.97 of the Commissioner of Customs -I, New Customs House, Mumbia.2. Brief facts relevant to the dispute are that the appellant is a merchant exporter. They imported materials under DEEC scheme. The materials so imported were cleared without payment of customs duty as provided under Notification No. 159/90-Cus dated 30.3.90. The goods were imported as replenishment in view of exports already undertaken and the appellants were not entitled to sell the goods in view of the provisions contained in para 250(2) of Exim Policy. Under the policy, if the exported goods had availed themselves of modvat facility in respect of inputs used in their production, the goods imported by way of replenishment could not be sold. The appellants had also bound themselves to the Customs Authorities to this effect. Being merchant exporters, the appellant ...

M/S. Chandra Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Tribunal vide order dated 3.4.2000 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.24,242/- and the case was fixed for reporting compliance on 2.6.2000. On that day none appeared on behalf of the appellant and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act.3. Appellant filed an application for recalling of the Final order and the application was fixed for hearing on 20.9.2000. On that day the appellant made a request for adjournment of the case and the same was adjourned to 16th October, 2000. On 16th October, 2000, Shri Feroz Ahmed, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and made a request that sometime Misc. application was field for modiciation of the said order and the same was not listed. The case was adjourned to 6.12.2000.On 6.12.2000, the Misc. application as well application for recalling of Final order was listed. shri B.N. Shah, Advocate appeared and asked for adjournment. The case was adjou...

M/S. Pesticides India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The contention of the applicants is that MODVAT credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the invoices were issued by M/s.Guljag Industries Ltd., Jaipur whereas the manufacturers' invoices were issued by M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd., Jaipur whereas the manufacturers' invoices were issued by M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., in the name of M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd. Jodhpur. The applicants relied upon the Board's Circular No.441/7/99-CE dated 23.2.99 whereby the Board has clarified that in view of the Notification NO.7/99-CE(NT) dated 9.2.99, the MODVAT credit shall not be denied on minor procedural lapse.2. In view of this Board's Circular, prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants, hence the pre-deposit of Rs.54,981/- is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for arguments on 19.2.2001 (Dictated in Court)....

indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT493TriDel

1. M/s Indore Steel & Iron Mills Ltd, have filed the present appeal being aggreived with the Order No. 14/2000 dt. 6-1-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 64,763/- and a equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, confiscation of goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and confiscation of two trucks with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.60,000/-.2. Shri K. K. Anand, Ld. Advocate, submitted that when the Central Excise Officers, visited their unit on 3-11-97 they found that though the excisable goods had been cleared under invoices and that truck was also parked therein in which excisable goods had been loaded, no excise duty was debited either in the PLA or in RG 23A Part II/RG 23C Part II; that there was sufficient credit balance in their RG-23A Part II Register but the e...

M/S. Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1289TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Cental Excise.2. In this case certain goods were found unaccounted in the RG-I record. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the goods and for imposing penalty under the provisions of Rule 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules.4. The contention of the appellant is that goods were found in the factory which were not entered in their RG-I Register, Therefore, the goods were not liable for confiscation in view of the decision of the tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Raipur, reported in 2000 (91) ECR 569 (Tribunal). The contention of the appellant is that were only liable to a penalty of Rs.2,000/- under the Rule 226 of Cental Excise Rules.5. The contention of the Revenue is that appellant had not accounted the goods in their RG-I Register. Therefore, the goods were liable to confiscation as per the provisions or Rule 173Q (i)(b). Th...

Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. C. M. M ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)313; AIR2001Delhi268; 2001(58)DRJ51

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in short, the Institute) alleging that C. M. Mehrotra, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had violated and contravened the provisions of clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule, Clause (I) of Part III of First Schedule and Clause (i) of part II of the Second Schedule to the Act, 2. 2. Back ground facts are as under: Proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received that while holding a certificate of practice respondent was in full time employment with National Insurance Company Ltd without obtaining permission of the Institute to be so engaged as required under Regulation 166 of the then Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter called the old Regulations) corresponding to Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (in short, the Regulations). It was ...

Riasat Ali Vs. Smt. Sayeeda Begum and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)501; 90(2001)DLT112; 2001(57)DRJ672; 2001RLR196

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Tenant, Riasat Ali had filed an Appeal against the Order dated 5.6.1999 of the Additional Rent Controller whereby his Objections had been dismissed. The Appeal was filed before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) on 22.7.1999. It was rejected on the grounds of it being barred by limitation, and this has been assailed before me. Mr. V.K. Shali, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the contentions articulated in the Petition. Firstly, it is his submission that the Tribunal erred in holding that the period of limitation started on 5th June, 1999. To this extent he is correct. The day on which the impugned order is passed is undoubtedly to be excluded. Hence the first day to be counted for computing the period within which the appeal ought to have been filed was 6th June, 1999. Mr. Shali has contended that since 6th June, 1999 was a Sunday and the Courts were closed from 7th June to 30th June (both days included) for the summer vacation, t...

Rakesh Patel Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)andchander Prakash V. the Sta ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)381; 2001CriLJ1928; 91(2001)DLT10

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Rakesh Patel @ Pappi, appellant in this appeal, Chander Prakash @ Chander, appellant in Cr.A.No.172/95 and Anil Kumar appellant in Crl.A.No.186/95 have assailed the order of conviction and sentence dated 28th July, 1995 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge thereby imposing rigorous imprisonment for life to them and a fine of Rs.75,000/- on appellant Rakesh Patel, Rs.15,000/- on Chander Prakash and Rs.10,000/- on Anil Kumar. In default of payment of fine they have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. Since these appeals have arisen from a common judgment based on same facts hence these appeals were heard together and are going to be disposed of by common order.2. The conviction and sentence has been assailed by the appellants on the grounds that: (1) mere last seen circumstance is no ground to presume that the deceased was killed by the appellants; (2) Extra judicial confession by one accused coul...

M/S. Shyam Ahuja Ltd. Vs. G.M. Enterprises and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)225; 90(2001)DLT606

ORDERA.K. Sikri, .1. This Appeal is preferred by the appellant (defendant in the Suit) against judgment and decree dated March 29, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 1201 of 1996. The learned Single Judge has decreed the Suit of the plaintiff-respondent herein for Rs.1,43,78,659.89 Along with cost as well as interest @ 18% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of decree till its realisation. Plaintiff had filed the Suit in May 1996 for ejectment and recovery of Rs.13,37,928.00 towards mesne profits and for determinations and grant of future mesne profits. Since the appellant had surrendered the possession of the Suit property to the respondent on 7th January, 1999, the question which remained to be determined was regarding mesne profits alone.2. The Suit property is plot no. 3, EFGH Block, local shopping Centre, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It comprises of ground floor and the basements immediately below the same with total super area of 4432 sq.ft. The respondent ...

Altab HossaIn Vs. Howrah Super Biri No. 202 and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ660

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling biris under the name and style of HOWRAH BIRI. The Plaintiff filed is No.5582 of 1997 for an interim injunction against the Defendants. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the Plaintiff on 4th July, 1997. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the ex parte injunction, the Defendants filed FAO(OS) No.178 of 1997. On 17th October, 1997 the Plaintiff stated before the Division Bench that the parte order may be vacated and the injunction application be decided on merits. In the meanwhile, the Defendants filed is No.9381 of 1997 praying for an injunction restraining the Plaintiff from manufacturing and marketing biris under the name and style of HOWRAH BIRI. Both these applications are now being disposed of. 3. According to the Plaintiff, it has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing biris since 25th August, 1995. It adopted a...