Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. R.K. Texcon (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. No one has come on behalf of the appellants. The perusal of the file shows that vide stay order dated 11.11.99 the Tribunal directed the appellants M/s. R.K.Texcom to deposit full amount of duty after excluding the amount already deposited, and penalty amount of Rs.12,50,000/- within the period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Similarly, Shri B.L.Gujar and Shri K.C. Agarwal, appellants were directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- each within the period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It was also specified in that order that on their failure to pre-deposit all the amounts, their appeals will be liable to be dismissed without further reference to them. The compliance was ordered to be reported on 18.1.2000. But this order of the Tribunal was not complied with by them. They no doubt filed application for modification of the order but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2000. The perusal of the file further shows that the appellants who (SIC) writ pe...

Union of India and Others Vs. Shri B.R. Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)890; 92(2001)DLT121; [2001(91)FLR324]

ORDERKhan, (J)1. Respondent was a Head Constable in CISF and was posted at VSSC, Thumba, Trivandrum at relevant time. A complaint was filed against him on 20.9.1983 by his colleague on N.K. Sandil charging him of misbehaving with his wife. A charge sheet was given to him on 25.10.1983 levelling three charges: (1) unauthorised entry in the house of Sandil on 20.9.1983 (b) misbehavior with his wife Kamla Devi and (c) threatening her. An enquiry was held against him. The Inquiry Officer gave acceleration on first charge and reported the other two established. Disciplinary authority disagreed with his finding on first charge and dismissed him from services. respondent thereafter took an appeal against his dismissal which was rejected. He then sought review of the order which was also turned down. He finally filed C.W.P. 1624/1997 to challenge his dismissal from service and sought its quashment. The writ court on consideration of the matter found discrepancies in the statement of imputation...

Punjab National Bank Vs. M/S. Paper Conductor and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)157

ORDERA.K. Sikri.J.1. Plaintiff-Bank has filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.6,79,345.15p against the defendants. The facts stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a body corporate constitute under the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1970 having its head office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-11006. The plaintiff has its branch office at Shahdra, Delhi-110032. Mr.K.K. Malhotra is the Manager and it also the duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff bank. He is duly authorised to institute the Suit and verify the pleadings. He has knowledge of the facts of the case which knowledge is derived from records maintained by the plaintiff bank. The defendant no.1 is a proprietorship concern having office at 3063, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, Delhi - 110005. The defendant no.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 and in that capacity is liable for the dues of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 opened a current account No. 5709 ...

Canara Bank Vs. M/S. Surya Chemicals and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)497; 91(2001)DLT684

ORDERA.K.Sikrij, J.1. Plaintiff-Canara Bank has filed this Suit for recovery of Rs.604026.39p against the defendants. Its a mortgaged Suit under Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure and is based on the basis following averments:-Plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer and Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office at 112, J.C.Road, Bangalore. It has its branches throughout India including the one at Tagore Garden, New Delhi. Shri T.S.Prabhu is the duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff-Bank is also on e of the Principal Officer of the plaintiff-Bank. He is conversant with the facts of the case and as such is in position to depose about the correctness or other wise of the facts mentioned in the plaint. He has an authority to sign and verify the plaint and instituted the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. Defendant no.1 is a proprietorship firm. Shri Inder Kapoor is its proprietor. Defendant no.2 isa guarantor for ...

Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)286; 2002(61)DRJ10

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. Rule.With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and its functionaries i.e. respondent No.s 1 and 2, to carry out their statutory obligation of demolishing the remaining portion of the front part of the building bearing municipal No. 4217, Mohd. Ahiran, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Respondent No. 3 is the tenant in the premises and carriers on his business there from.2. This case has a chequered history. It would be necessary to briefly recapitulate the same.3. The writ petition had come up before a learned Single Judge of this court on 27.9.1999. Learned Single Judge on the petitioner's submission that the property was more than 100 years old and that a substantial portion had collapsed, directed MCD to inspected the premises and if found to be in ruinous condition, it would take steps for demolition of the prop...

M/S. Raghav Alloys Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1036TriDel

1. In this case, the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vide his Order dt. 29.6.99 confirmed an amount of Rs.1,93,066/- as duty on the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on them.The party filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Stay Order dt. 23/27.3.2000 directed them to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs within a period of 15 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order observed that the matter did not lie in the favour of the party inasmuch as the basis of the impugned was Order-in-Original No.4/Commissioner/Meerut/97 dated 22.8.97 already passed by the Commissioner.2. On receipt of the above direction for pre-deposit, the party wrote a letter dt. 13.4.2000, in which they submitted inter alia that the said Stay Order had been passed on the basis of avcnment that the Order-in-Original No. 4/Commissioner/Meerut-I/97 had attained finality.It was however, contended that the said order passed by the...

Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-iii Vs. Enkay Hws India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(139)ELT21(Del)

1. This is an application for reference in terms of Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, 'the Act').2. When the matter was placed for admission, we pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that this High Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, in view of the decision of this Court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) : [1978]113ITR817(Delhi) . In the said case, white dealing with the scope of entertaining reference under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the I.T Act'), it was observed that this High Court, that the State within whose territorial jurisdiction original adjudicating authority functions would have jurisdiction to deal with the reference under the concerned Statute. The view was again reiterated in Suresh Desai and Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax : [1998]230ITR912(Delhi) . That was also a case under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act. In a petition for reference arising under the Act in Centr...

M/S. Cachet Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT72TriDel

1. Appellants are manufacturers of patent and proprietary medicines.They do so from Bhiwani located near Bombay,k Gujrat and Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). They were liable to pay excise duty on the normal price prevailing at the factory gate. As the good were being sold from depots, which handled goods from more than one factory, they averaged the deductible elements of costs like freight, octroi and other taxes and claimed assessment based on the normal price arrived at after deduction of these elements on average basis from the depot price. The impugned order held that such deduction on average basis is not permissible and that factorywise particulars of deductible expenses should be made available. On account of failure to do the same, the order denied deduction claimed to the tune of about Rs.80 Lakhs and made duty demand.2. During the hearing of the appeal today, Learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that deduction on average basis for several factories is a commonly accept...

M/S. Surindra Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissoner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and Rolled Products like Bars, Angles, Channels Flats etc. falling under Sub-heading 7206.90 and 7214.90 respectively. The Officers of Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh visited their factory premises on 24.12.91. On physical verification of the stocks, some finished goods were found, which were seized and in respect of them separate proceedings were initiated against the appellants. The visiting officers, on verification of the record, also came to the conclusion that they had wilfully and intentionally suppressed 1351.817 MTs of Steel Ingots during the period from 18.4.91 to 28.7.91 and transferred the same clandestinely to their Rolling Division and did not account for the same in their RG-I account.Accordingly, they were issued a show cause notice dated 22.8.95 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigar-I calling upon them to show cause why the duty amounting to Rs.8,53,388.04 should not be de...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Telephone Cables Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT729TriDel

1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Telephone Cables falling under Sub-heading 8544.00. They had availed the MODVAT credit on the items viz' Speco Lube, Nexus N: 375 VAUPS with built in batteries, Testing Chords, Input Assembly Module, Techometer Generator, Connector, Pump and Annealer Cooling as capital goods. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his order dated 18.12.97, however, disallowed them the MODVAT credit on these items and confirmed a demand of Rs.1,56,988/-. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on them.2. The party filed an appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 18.5.99 allowed the appeal of the party in respect of all the terms by setting aside the order passed by the original authorities.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Swatantra Kumar, JDR for the Revenue and Shri G.S.Bhangoo, Advocate for the respondent. It is contended that the goods under ...