Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT252; 2001(59)DRJ48

Devinder Gupta, J.1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants seeking determination of the amount of compensation payable to them for acquisition of their property.2. Claimants property situate in village Ladha Sarai, Delhi was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi through Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 13.11.1959. It was followed by two declaration dated 7.12.1966 and 6.1.1969. For the first declaration corrigendum's were issued on 23.9.1968; 23.12.1969 and 27.3.1970. Collector Land Acquisition also made different awards. Two awards were made on 28.3.1975, namely, Award Nos. 27 and 28 of 1974/1975. Placing reliance upon the market rates of land of village Lado Sarai, the adjoining revenue estate the Collector offered compensation to the claimants @ 4,000/- per bigha for land falling in Block A and @ Rs. 1,500/- for land falling in Block B. ...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. J.K. Aggrawal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 13.9.2000, passed by District Forum (East), in Complaint Case No. 497/98 - entitled Shri J.K. Aggrawal v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Shri J.K. Aggrawal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the respondent was running a Rolling Mill in the name and style of KAYCEE Electricals at B-7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi, manufacturing copper wires, rods, strips etc. It was stated that the respondent was having his godown at 43-A, Dilshad Garden, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. It was further stated that the telephone of the respondent, bearing No. 2283200, installed at B-7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdrara, Delhi, was on PBX B...

M/S. Punjab Laminates Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The time granted by this Tribunal as well as the High Court for depositing the amount ordered under our stay order has lapsed without the appellant making the deposit. They have not succeeded in the Supreme Court either. The appeal itself is therefore, rejected for non-compliance....

M/S. Valves and Valves Industrial Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT705TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of valves. On 19.2.98, the factory of the appellants was visited by the officers of the revenue department and on verification of the stock, it was found that 501 pcs. of valves were found in excess to their R.G. I record and these goods were taken into possession. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and gave an option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/-.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that 501 pcs. of valves were lying in the factory and they had not reached the stage of removal. He submits that at the time of visit by the Central Excise officers, Sh. K.S. Rana, partner of the ap...

M/S. Mukerian Papers Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The first stage of appeal in this case was dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 5.5.2000 on account of the appellants not making pre-deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- as ordered by him vide his Stay Order dt. 28.3.2000.2. Consequent on the appellants filing an appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals),they were directed vide CEGAT Stay Order dt. 13.10.2000 to make a deposit of Rs.1 lac within a period of eight weeks. The appellants accordingly made the deposit of the stated amount by making debit entry No.33 dt. 1.12.2000 in their RG 23C Pt.II which is duly attested by the Supdt., of Central Excise, Mukerian Range.3. In view of the due compliance of the Stay Order of the Tribunal by the appellants and on taking into consideration of the fact that their appeal has not been considered on merits by the lower appellate authority, the order appealed against is set aside and the matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de - novo consideration o...

M/S. Rishi Chemicals Works (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT105TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby their refund claim was rejected as time bar.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Inorganic Chemicals and w ere availing the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final product. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of Rs.18,240/-. Appellants on 12.10.94 made the entry in their RG-23A Part II in respect of this amount. Thereafter, on asking of the Revenue, they debited the amount of demand in their PLA account also.The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the appellants. The appellants challenged this order of imposition of penalty and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants.3. On 8.2.97, appellants filed a refund claim in respect of duty paid through RG-23A Part II on 12.10.94. A show cause ...

M/S. Nirma Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT207TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of detergent washing power and detergent cakes and they were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of final product. During the process of manufacture of final product, a bi-product, viz., spent sulphuric acid came into existence and the appellants were clearing the same at nil rate of duty under notification 4/94 dated 1.3.94 to the manufacturer of fertilizer. Duty was demanded under Rule 57CC of the Rules on spent sulphuric acid as the same was cleared at nil rate of duty. The demand was confirmed.Appellants filed an appeal and the same was rejected.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants produced a ...

Mrs. Podar S.R. Mills Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the appellants by the Stay Order No. S/26/01/NB (SM) dt. 21.12.2000 were directed to make a deposit of entire duty amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of that order. It was also stated in that order that in the event of their failing to comply with the Stay direction, their appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to them under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter was directed to come up for reporting compliance on 7.2.2001.2. Today when the matter is called, Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate claiming to be representing the appellants states that the Stay Petition of the appellants was disposed of without hearing them and for that they have filed a Restoration of Appeal Petition which is on record. The ld.Advocate requested for the disposal; of the same. On specific querry, Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate submitted that he has no authorisation or Vakalathnama from the appellants to represent their case. Further, it is observ...

M/S. Khawani Mills Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that the staff of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-II on information that t a large number of consignments of man- made fabrics we being cleared from the premises of the manufacturers at Surat without payment of Cental Excise duty and were being transported to Amritsar from Surat, on 17.10.98, searched the premises of the Transporter Companies viz., M/s. Gagan Freight Carriers, Amritsar and M/s. Delhi - Punjab Goods Carrier at Amritsar.Further, the godowns of these carriers were also searched on the same date and the statements of their Managers were recorded. On investigation, it was learnt that the two transporters were transporting processed man-made fabrics from Surat under facilitious addresses of consignors/consignees in coded alphabets & numerals in collusion and connivance with unknown manufacturers of Surat. The operators of this were deliberately engaged in a system which lead to anonymity among consignors/consignees, thus ab...

M/S. Chandra Industries Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter was last called on 18.12.2000. On that date, the appellants were represented by Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate. On that date, the Bench directed the ld. Counsel of the appellants to produce Order-in-Appeal No.409/CE/85 dt. 17.6.85 and also adjourned the matter to this date.2. Today when the matter is called, there is no one for the appellants.There is no communication from them either requesting for the adjournment or giving reasons for their absence. It therefore appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting their appeal....