Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Shri Naresh and Shri Jamil Ahmed Vs. C.C.E. Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When these matters were called, no one is present for either of the appellants. The notice for hearing to this date were sent to them on 16.1.2001 by the Registry. There is no communication from the appellants either requesting for adjournment or giving reasons for their absence. It therefore, appears that they are not interested in prosecuting their appeals. Both the appeals are therefore dismissed for non prosecution...

M/S Indra Processors Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the Order dated 22.7.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh under Rule 96 ZQ(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants are operating a Hot Air Stenter installed in their factory and they are manufacturing specified textile fabrics falling under Chapter heading Nos.52.07,52.08,52.09,54.06,54.07,55.11,55.12,55.13 and 5514 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These items are chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 42/98-CE(NT) dated 10.12.98. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II vide his Order dated 25.5.95 determined the annual capacity of production of the appellants at Rs. 474.48 lacs w.e.f. 16.12.98 under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Subsequently, the Commissioner passed another order dated 22.7.99 under Rule 96 ZQ(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in which he determined an amount of Rs...

M/S. Danke Products Vs. Cce, Mumbai-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Danke Products, the matter relates to the small scale exemption, which was being availed by the appellants during the period 25.3.86 to 31.3.86. The appellants were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 77/85 CE dated 1.3.85 prior to the introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff. On introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff, Notification No.77/85 CE was replaced by Notification No.175/86 CE dated 1.3.86. This Notification No.175/86 CE was suspended for the period 25.3.86 to 31.3.86 and instead Notification No.213/86 CE dated 25.03.86 was issued to provide the same level of exemption to the assessees that was earlier available to them under Notification No.77/.85 CE. One of the conditions of eligibility to the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.213/86 CE was that the value of clearances in the financial year should not have exceeded Rs. 40,00,000/-. The value of clearances of the appellants has already exceeded Rs.40,00,...

Mr. Madan Lal @ Gagar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)468; 90(2001)DLT423; 2001(59)DRJ112

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.(1) Madan Lal @ Gagar has assailed the order dated 30th March, 1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi thereby convicting him of offences under Sections 302/332/353 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months. The impugned order of conviction and sentence have been assailed, primarily on the grounds:-i) that being a single blow suddenly given on the chest of the deceased without. any intention or premeditation hence case would be covered under Section 304 and not under Section 302 IPC;ii) that there was violation of Rule 24 (1) of Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Delhi;(2) In order to appreciate the challenge brief facts relevant for our consideration are, that constable Onkanwar Singh (PW-6) was on patrol duty near jhuggi of K-Block, Jahangirpuri on 6th December, 1988. At about 7.45 P.M. constable Bhupender Singh the deceased came there ad i...

Management of Birla Textiles Vs. P.O. (Labour Court-i) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)558; 90(2001)DLT478; [2001(89)FLR918]; (2001)IILLJ306Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. There is no appearance on behalf of the parties There was no appearance for any party even on February 19, 2001. On October 6, 1999 the matter was directed to be heard in the first five cases on January 17, 2000. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the parties, the matter, which is of the year 1997, is being taken up for hearing today.2. The petition arises from the award dated February 10, 1997 of the Labour Court, Delhi. The terms of the reference, as per the order dated February 17, 1985 are as follows:'Whether the termination of services of Shri Ram Briksh is legal/justified. If not, what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. The case of respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was as under:The respondent No. 2-workman was working with the management since 1964 in the Ring Frame Department, Shift-C and his last drawn wages were Rs. 775/- per month and he was performing his duties sincerely and there was no complaint against him. The management was al...

Vinod Kumar Chopra Vs. Sunshine Travel India Private Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)858; 2001(2)RAJ412

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Brief facts which are material to the context for deciding this appeal may be recapitulated first. The respondents herein filed suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants/appellants herein. The prayer in the Suit was to command the appellants to adhere to the restrictive covenants agreed to and undertaken by them in Clause 6 and 7 of the agreement dated July 15, 1997 and to do all necessary acts, deeds and things to ensure compliance of these clauses. By agreement dated July 15, 1997 the appellant No. 1 had inter alias agreed as under :Clause 6 : 'He shall however continue to be a Director of the said company, if so desired by the Vendee, after such approval is obtained from IATA, subject to the consent of the Vendee and/or the said company and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon ultimately between the said company and Shri Vinod Chopra. Shri Vinod Chopra further covenants that he shall not own, acquire or possess any share or in...

Bhupinder Singh Bhatia Vs. Cgt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN234(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of assessed, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the validity of the assessment made under section 15(5)/16(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :assessed is an individual. The assessing officer issued notice under section 16(1) of the Act and according to him notice was served on the assessed on 11-2-1983. As the assessed did not file return within thirty days, the assessing officer continued with the proceedings. In response to the statutory notice, the assessed, along with his advocate, appeared before the assessing officer on two occasions during the month of May, 1986 praying for adjournment, which was granted. On 11-6...

M/S. Vacmet Packagings (India) P. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the appeal has been listed by the Registry for mention, but both the sides state that it has been wrongly so listed as the appeal on the last date of hearing was listed for regular hearing and they are ready for arguments. Therefore, I proceed to hear the appeal on merits.2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 27.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-original dated 12.7.99 disallowing the modvat credit of Rs.12,038/- on the strength of Triplicate copy of the challan.The appellants took modvat credit of Rs.12,038/- during the month of February, 1997 on the basis of triplicate copy of the challan, in RG 23 A Part II vide entry No. 120/1887 dated 16.2.97, but the same was not infact admissible under the law, and on asking of the Customs Department, they debited the same in RG 23 A Part II vide entry No.19/328 to 25.9.97. But thereafter they made request in writing to the Assista...

M/S. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts in this case are that the appellants had imported 14 sets of iron moulds and availed modvat credit of Rs.2,17,084/- in respect of the CVD paid on them. They sent these moulds for job worker - M/s.Perfect Job Work, Delhi in terms of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under their challan No.30/20.6.94. The Central Excise Officers visited their premises on 24/25.11.94 and found that the said moulds had not yet been received back from the job worker. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants and the Joint Commissioner (Technical), Jaipur vide his Order dt. 23.9.99 disallowed the modvat credit of the aforestated amount to the party under Rule 57U. Since the party had paid the amount through their modvat credit account on 31.5.96, he ordered for the appropriation of the same against the aforestated confirmation. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.2,17,084/- under Rule 57U(6) and another amount of penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 173Q on the ...

M/S. Mianji Steel P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None for the appellant. The notice for today's hearing of the stay application was issued to them by the Registry on 16.1.2001. but no response has been received from them, nor there is any request for adjournment also from them. Therefore the stay application filed by the appellants is dismissed for want of prosecution. They are however, direct to make pre-deposit of the entire duty and penalty involved in the appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which their appeal shall be liable to be dismissed under Section 35 F of the Act....