Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Indian Bank Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr. Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)793; 91(2001)DLT267

ORDERA. K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition raises a neat question of law relatable to the amendment of the plaint filed by respondent Punjab National Bank in O.A. No.508 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), New Delhi. The amendment application stands allowed by DRT, New Delhi. The appeal of the petitioner Indian Bank against the said order filed before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai has also failed. The amendment appears to be innocuous. However, it has wide ramifications as far as Indian Bank is concerned. thereforee, feeling aggrieved against the orders of the subordinate authorities, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Indian Bank. In order to appreciate the controversy in this petition, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail and a cursory look of material facts would suffice the purpose. These material facts as noted by the DRAT may be reproduced as under: 2. The Punjab National Bank agreed to advance...

Smt. Geeta Sethi Vs. the State (C.B.i.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)397; 2001CriLJ2659; 91(2001)DLT47; 2001(58)DRJ713

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 10.11.2000 passed by learned ACMM rejecting petitioner's application for exemption from personal attendance during trial.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.3. The petitioner is facing trial under Section IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (control) Act 1947 on the basis of a complaint filed by the Chief Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. She was admitted to bail in the year 1993. The case is still at the stage of pre-charge evidence. The prosecution has cited 140 witnesses out of which only 24 have been examined so far. As such it is manifestly clear that the Trial still has to go along way before reaching its culmination.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1.9.2000 when the case was fixed for pre-charge evidence the petitioner, who is a pa...

Smt. Nirmala Goenka Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)84; 91(2001)DLT121

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J Pleading have been completed.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. Petitioner has come to this court, seeking quashing of final notice dated 25.6.1998, calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction, allegedly under the stair case. The notice also provided that in the event of non-removal of unauthorised constructions, additions, alterations, or failure to show cause, as to why they be not removed, the allotment of the petitioner of flat No.161, (SF), Ashok Vihar, Phase IV (SFS), Delhi would be liable to cancellation.2. An interim order was passed on 24.8.1998, whereby the respondents were restrained from taking any action on the final notice dated 25.6.1998. The said notice gives the ground as under:-'You have grabbed the land under the stair case of the block and constructed a room which is as a store.'The contention of the petitioner is that she has not constructed any room under the stair case. Petitio...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(134)ELT39(Del)

ORDER1. Heard. We direct the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions along with statement of case for opinion of this Court:'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not dealing with the question that when final products have been exempt from the whole of duty and chargeable to nil rate of duty, as claimed by the Revenue in terms of Section 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Modvat credit is admissible on such articles which go into the final product ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the issue whether seats manufactured by Bharat Seats Limited were steel seats or not ?'The Petition standsdisposed of....

M/S. Unicure Pharmaceuticals Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC65

1. In the present application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM), the applicants, M/s. Unicure Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. have prayed that the orders passed in their Appeal No.E/893/92-C be rectified as under:- BEFORE THE HON'ABLE CUSTOMS & GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ('C' BENCH), NEW DELHI. Tribunal's Final order No. : 664-99-C dt.2.8.99 and Tribunal's Miscellaneous Order No. M/29/2000/C dt. 10.3.2000.F.25. B.I.D.C. Estate ...... Applicant/Appellant Gorwa, Baroda. (1) This humble Petition contain a prayer for rectification of mistake in final order No.664/99-C dt. 2-8-99 (Zerox copy enclosed) and Misc. Order No.29/2000/C dt. 10-3-2000 according to which Applicant's Appeal No.E/893/92-C and ROM has been dismissed. (2) The Appellant respectfully invite attention to the following remarks made in the Misc. Order No.29/2000/C dt. 10-3-2000 (A) We find that the question of loan licencee was not raised in the proceeding before the Tribunal. " It may be seen that last para (D) is a ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Mahaan Dairies

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT461TriDel

1. The respondents namely, Mahaan Dairies Ltd. are an SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of pure ghee (branded) and pickles (both branded and unbranded). In their declaration filed under Rule 173-B effective from 2.6.98, they had declared to the department that, on their product viz.pure ghee, they were using "Mahaan" brand name belonging to M/s Mahaan Foods Ltd. [in short, M/s MFL] and would be paying duty on the product at full rate on account of use of other's brand name. In respect of branded pickles, they declared that they would be using their own brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" and would be paying duty on the product at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 8/98-CE dated 2.6.98 (prior to 2.6.98, Notification No. 16/97-Ce dated 1.3.97). The respondents later informed the department that "Mahaan" was a registered brand name of M/s MFL and that in 1997 they had applied for registration of the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" for use on pickles.Later on, the resp...

M/S. Prasam Enterprises Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Prasam Enterprises being aggrieved with two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In his Order-in-Appeal No.23-CE/KNP dated 23.2.2000, the Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and had set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Agra. In other order, the claim for refund was rejected as it was found that there was no case for any refund.2. Shri A.S. Sisodia, Advocate submitted that originally the assessee had filed 11 refund claims on the ground of modvat credit on the inputs when used in the goods exported. All the refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad, who had remanded the matter with the directions that the adjudicating authority should decide the matters on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice. It was his plea that a detailed order...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. Supreme Vinyl Films Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Swatanter Kumar, JDR submits that in this case the date of payment of duty was 2.2.98 and that credit has bene taken as 2.8.98, which was beyond the period of 6 months by one day. He submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was not proper and legal, (SIC).2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate submits that one date either the date of payment of duty or the date on which the credit has been taken has to be ignored as is provided under the provisions of the General Clauses Act and if viewed from that angle, the credit has been taken within the period of 6 months.3. On going through the Tribunal's order relied upon by the ld.Advocate, I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ld.Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal. I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.Ordered accordingly....

M/S. Etah Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below we waived the pre-deposit of duty and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise has determined Annual Capacity of the appellants' unit as 10016 m.t. for discharging duty liability in terms of Rule 3(4) of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 w.e.f. 1.9.97. It is the submission of the appellants that the Commissioner has determined the furnace capacity on the basis of physical verification, which is not permissible under the Rules since the rules provide for determination on the basis of invoice of manufacturer/suppliers' invoice and in the present case, the appellants had furnished the furnace manufacture's invoice issued by M/s. Inductotherm(India)Ltd., Ahmedabad. They further submitted that although the furnace capacity is shown in the invoice as 3 m.t. the capacity should be taken as 2.5 m.t. They prayed that the capacity may be re-determined, on the basis of 2.5 m.t...

M/S. Ray Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate submits that the appellants, M/s. Raj Cement, a unit of M/s. Shree Cement Ltd. are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.97,782/- for hearing their Appeal No.E/3499/2000 NB (SM). He submits that the appellants have a arguable case and they will place all their points when the matter is fixed for regular hearing.2. After hearing Shri A.K. Jain, SDR, I direct the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) within a period of 4 weeks from today. On pre-depositing the above sum of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance duty amount will be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal.3. To come-up for reporting the compliance for and further orders on 12th April, 2001....