Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Bilal Ahmed Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)182; 2001(58)DRJ476; 2001(75)ECC504

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This order shall dispose of appellant's application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the Section 32A of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) for suspension of the sentence awarded to the appellant-petitioner.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records of the case.3. The appellant stands convicted under Section 20 of the Act and has been sentenced by the Special Courts to undergo R1 for 10 years and a fine of Rupees one lakh. In default of payment of fine, he is ordered to undergo further RI for 2 years.4. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for bail mainly on the ground that the report of CFSL Ex. P-X could not be admitted in evidence under Section 293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in as such as the Sr. Scientific Officer who signed the report was not one of the officers categorised under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Proc...

Modern Terry Towels Ltd. Vs. R.K. Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The above two appeals have been filed by the appellant assailing a common order, dated 5.7.2000, passed by District Forum No. VI (New Delhi) in Complaint Case Nos. 1548/1999 and 1548/1999 entitled Shri R.K. Singh v. M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. and Ms. Savitri v. M/s Modern Terry Towels Ltd., respectively. 2. The relevant facts, in brief are, that the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs. 16,000/- each with the appellant in a Fixed Deposit for six months to be refunded together with agreed rate of interest on maturity to the respondents. However, since the appellant failed to pay back the maturity value of the Fixed Deposits to the respondents, the respondents filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the District Forum for the recovery of the same. 3. Notice under registered cover was issued to the appellant by the District Forum but since the same was not received back unde...

Mukesh Kumar Vs. Kateyani Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the order of the District Forum-III, dated 3.6.1998, passed in Complaint Case No. 1135/1997 entitled Shri Mukesh Kumar v. Kateyani Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum was that he was a subscriber of Chit No. K-4/8 for Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only), floated by the respondent Company and had been paying the instalments of Rs. 3,000/- each, every month regularly from 15.11.1990 upto 9.3.1992, for which the respondent had issued separate receipts. Thereafter, on 29.9.1992 the appellant had bid for Rs. 50,000/- which was duly accepted by the respondent Company. The appellant had to make the payment of Rs. 70,000/- to the appellant within 30 days of the acceptance of the bid, in terms of the Rules of the Chit Fund. It was stated by the appellant in the complaint...

M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 9,17,725.00 and penalty of Rs. five lakh.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and during the manufacture of sugar, molasses come into existence as by-product, which is stored in tanks. His submission is that molasses is also subjected to control of State Excise Department and molasses cannot be disposed of without permission from the State Excise Department. The duty is being demanded on the molasses, which was destroyed due to auto-combustion. His submission is that in the show cause notice, the only allegation is that the applicants had not taken due precaution to prevent auto-combustion. The contention of the applicants is that they requested the State Excise Department for clearance of molasses. He also submits that due precautions were taken to prevent auto-combustion. Ld. Counsel submits that the applicants were duly r...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Jagdish Travels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC852

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order in appeal dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he had set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 of Rs.27,500/-on the appellants.3. The respondents failed to fill their quarterly Returns ending quarters December 1997, March 1998 and June 1998. They were accordingly saddled with the penalty of Rs.27,500/- by the Assistant Commissioner after getting their reply for the delay in filing the returns which was of 275 days. The respondents contested the correctness (sic) Assistant Commissioner dated 23.2.99 and the Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the penalty amount as imposed by the Assistant COmissioner by accepting their appeal.5. The learned JDR has assailed the validityof the impugned order in appeal on the ground that the same had been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1944. He has argued that discretion for not imposing penalty could ...

M/S. Varinder Agro Chem. Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 29.10.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) affirming the order in original dated 18.3.98 of the Deputy Commissioner who disallowed the modvat credit of Rs. Rs.2,13,749/- to them and also imposed penalty of the equal amount on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.3. The appellants took modvat credit of Rs.2,13,749/- in RG.23A/II on the item 'Sulphur' but they did not maintain RG.23A/I Register as required under Rule 57-G (3) (a) of the Central Excise Rules. They, however, only maintained From IV Register in which common account for the duty paid and non-duty paid stock of 'sulphur' was kept by them but due to non-maintenance of the prescribed record i.e.RG.23A/I Register it was not possible to verify the receipt of the duty paid 'Sulphur' on which credit was taken by the appellants. The appellants were also found clearing Sulphuric Acid i.e. final product, for manufacture of which ...

M/S. Ct Scan Research Centre (P) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants made import of One Computerized Axial Tomography Scanner and a spare C.T.X-ray Tube vide Bill of Entry dated 24.7.91 and claimed the exemption under Notification No.64/88-CUS. dated 1.3.88 and the same were cleared at the Nil rate of duty by extending the benefit of Notification No.64/88-Cus. dated 1.3.88. On 17.9.98 a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the above mentioned goods under Section 111(0) and penal Section 112 of the Customs Act on the ground that this had contravened the provision of Notification No. 64/88/Cus.dated 1.3.1988.3. After considering the reply and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing of the appellants, the Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the goods imported by the appellants and gave an option to redeem the goods on redemption fine of R...

M/S. Raymonds Ltd. and Sh. Premal Vs. Cce, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT327TriDel

1. These appeals have come before us upon reference by the West Regional Bench of this Tribunal. The issue involved is the valuation (for levy of Central Excise duty) of goods manufactured by an assessee and consumed by him in further manufacture. After nothing the different decisions which had been rendered by the Tribunal on the issue, the Bench has observed as under: "3. We thus find that in spite of the existence of a number of judgements on this aspect, there is no specific ratio arising out of them. 4. The main issue is the language of the subject rule, It makes for projection of an eventuality which is bound never to arise. 5. In this situation we deem it proper to refer this issue to the Hon'ble President of the CEGAT with the request that it be placed before the larger bench for disposal and decision. As an interim order we waive pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalties imposed".2. We have heard learned Counsel representing the appellants M/s Raymonds Limited and P...

M/S Haryana Roadways Engineering Vs. Cce, New Delhi and Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC75

1. In these five appeals the common issue involved is whether the activity of fabricating body on the duty paid thesis amounts to manufacture of Motor Vehicle, classifiable under heading 87.02 to 87.05 of the Schedule toe the Central Excise Tariff Act interms of Note 3 to Chapter 87 or under heading 8707 of the Tariff as confirmed in the impugned Order and whether the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is invokable under Section 11 A (1) of the Central Excise Act.2. We heard Shri K.K.Anand, ld. Advocate, for M/s Haryana Roadways Engineering Coporation Ltd., Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate for M/s Haryana Coach Body Builders and M/s Batra Coach Builders, and Shri B.L.Narsiman, Ld Advocate for M/s Commercial Engineering and Body Co.Builders Pvt. Ltd, and M/s Ambala Coach Builders, and Shri M.P.Singh, ld D.R., on behalf of the Revenue.3. The Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal vide Misc Order No.73/2000-B dt. 22-5-2000 has held, following the dismissal of the appeal file...

M/S. General Engg. Works, Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs 4,07,199/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground of non compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of entire duty as directed in his interim stay order.2. We have heard Shri K.K.Anand, Ld.Advocate and Shri P.K.Jain, Ld.SDR. We find that assessee did not appear for personal hearing for considering the stay application and that their request for modification of stay order was considered by the lower appellate authority, but rejected. No stay order has been obtained by them from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court before which they have filed a writ petition in September 2000 against interim stay order. Noting the above, and noting that the appellant's unit is lying closed, we direct pre-deposit of Rs. one lakh as duty within a period of 8 weeks from today, since we are of the view that no prima facie case for total waiver has been made ...