Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Ms. Jaishree Manchanda Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)361; 92(2001)DLT359

ORDERManmohan Sarin. J Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner assails the order bearing No.10/3537/0/W dated 14.11.1996 rejecting her application for grant of regular electric connection on the ground that the premises basement-12, Central Lane, Bengali Market was being used for purposes other than permissible.3. Facts as given in the petition may briefly be noted:(i) Petitioner having completed the prescribed course in theory and practice of electrolysis, is, qualified to teach and practice the same. She hold an Aestheticienna Diploma from the International Therapy Examination Council. (ii) The petitioner had initially taken on rent basement at 12, Central Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi, which she subsequently purchased by entering into 4 agreements with the joint owners for purchase of 500 sq. ft. totalling 200 sq. ft. (iii) Petitioner has been running her business and carrying the trade by way of running a school of electrolysis...

Shri H.C. Khurana Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT271; [2002(92)FLR665]

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 27.11.1997 issued to the petitioner. It is stated that the charges in respect of which the aforesaid charge sheet was issued on 27.11.1997 relate to the period between 1983 & 1987 and thereforee, the said charge sheet cannot be made operative and is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay.2. The petitioner was functioning as Executive Engineer during the period 1983-86. During the aforesaid period construction of certain MIG houses at Shalimar Bagh, Block 'C', Pocket 'A' was carried out by the respondent and the same was supervised by the petitioner. The aforesaid work as inspected by the Chief Engineer on 13.2.1987 and certain observations were made by him upon inspection which were issued on 19.2.1987. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 21.11.1997 on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and while function...

Shri K.C. Sethi Vs. the Registrar General, Supreme Court of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ320

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.Rule. As the parties are represented by their counsel and relevant records have been placed before me by both the parties, I proceed to dispose of the writ petition after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the notification dated 10.4.2000 issued under the signature of the Registrar (Admn.) of the Supreme Court of india retiring the petitioner from service in public interest w.e.f. 4.4.2000 on his attaining the age of 57 years. The said order was passed in exercise of powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Registry of the Supreme Court as Senior Stenographer on 25.7.1970. The petitioner served in the Registry in different capacities and was promoted as Officiating Joint Registrar by an order dated 29.4.1997. While serving as such the petitioner received a memorandum dated 6.4.1998 by which the petitio...

M/S. Vikram Cement Vs. Cce, Indore-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.1,26651/- and penalty of Rs.5,000/-. The applicant has made a request for adjournment of the case also.2. I have heard Shri S.Kumar, Ld. DR who submits that the issue involved in this case is about admissibility of Modvat credit on explosives used for quarry of lime stone in mines situated away from cement factories. Ld. DR submits that the issue stands finally settled by the decision of the Larger Bench and therefore, there is no question of any adjournment and the stay application may be rejected.3. I have hard Ld. DR. I have also perused the application of adjournment. I note that the issue of admissibility of Modvat credit on explosives used in mines away from the factory has been decided finally by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. In the circumstances I do not find any reasonable ground to give adjournment. In the circumstances, I direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,26,651/- towards duty...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. Shri Pukhraj Moondra

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT643TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order-in-Appeal No.27(KDT)Cus/JPR/2000. "I find that the appellants arguments have a lot of merit and respectfully following the CEGAT judgments cited above, the impugned order is set aside".3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants premises were searched. The premises were in the name of Shri Pukhraj Moondra.Foreign currency in US$ amounting to (sic) 1990 was recovered. During the search, Shri Pukhraj Moondra, proprietor of M/s. Pukhraj Moondra the appellant in the instant case told Custom Officers that some times, motivated by the greed for making money, he purchased and sold foreign exchange and that he had concealed foreign-exchange beneath the counter. A SCN was issued to the appellant asking him to explain as to why the foreign currency in US$ should not be confiscated under Section 111 of Customs Act and why a penalty should not be imposed under Section 70 & 11 of Customs Act,62 read with Section 8 and ...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Singhal Strips Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT298TriDel

"I have gone through the records of the case very carefully. Going by the usage of Control Panel as explained int eh Order-in-Original, I observe that the subject item is covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. Going by the ratio of judgments in the case of CCE, Meerut vs Mansurapur Sugar Mills Ltd. - 1998(100)ELT.472(T) and Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills vs CCE, Coimbatore reported in 1999(108)ELT.47, I hold that the item is within the scope of capital goods under Rule 57Q. Accordingly, I uphold the Order-in-Original and dismiss the appeal".2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak allowed Modvat credit of Rs.1,22,240/- on Electrical Control Panel. The commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reviewing the order observed that Asstt. Commissioner's order of allowing Modvat credit on Electrical Control Panel is not correct and directed the appellants to file an appeal against the same.3. Arg...

M/S Dimensions India Vs. Cc New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC663

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Dimension India, the issue involved is valuation of Cotton Shirts exported by them under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme.2. Shri J.M.Sharma, ld. Consultant, with Shri J.S.Agrawal, Advocate, submitted, that the Appellants, a regular exporting unit, filed a shipping bill on 3-8-99 in respect of 100% Cotton Gents Shirts and declared the price US$ 10.75 per piece(Rs 463.85 in Indian Currency): that Commissioner of Customs under the impugned Order lowered the valuation of the shirt to Rs. 65 per piece on the basis of market enquiry: that no evidence has been brought on record as to how the valuation has been taken to be Rs. 65 per piece and as to from whom and of what goods the market enquiry was made. The ld. consultant emphasised that at no stage the report of market enquiry has been disclosed to them and as such the Commissioner has not brought on record any evidence to prove that the cotton shirts exported by them were over valued at all. He fina...

M/S. Kunal Processors Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT653TriDel

1. This appeal ha been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of adjudication dated 6/12.1.94 passed by the Collector vide which he had confirmed the duty amount of Rs.3.70,340/- and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of ranitary fittings and parts thereof and brass castings falling under Chapters 84 and 74 of the CETA. During the course of assessment of the quarterly Return in Form R1.12 the assessing officer found in August 1992, that the appellants did not submit copies of all the consecattve bills/invoices regarding the goods cleared by them. Thereafter on scrutiny of those bills and invoices it revealed that they had been clearing silver coated copper tamping power but they did not reflect the same in the classification lists or in R.T.12 Returns or in any other statutory record. They admitted vide their letter dated 7.7.93 of having supplied silver coated copper tamping powder(impugned goods) to the Diesel Component Works,...

M/S. Rishabh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of two stay applications bearing Nos.E/Stay/495/2000-D and E/Stay/496/2000-D arising out of Appears Nos.E/857/2000-D and E/858/2000-D respectively. In the first stay application the appellants have sought waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty demand of Rs.25,77,654/- and also of the equal amount of penalty confirmed on them by the Commissioner through the impugned order in original. Similarly, in the second stay application the appellant who was the Managing Director of the firm M/s.Rishab Chemicals (P) Ltd., has prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.5 imposed on him under Rule 209-A06 the Central Excise Rues.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of grey filter cloth classifiable under Chapter 59 of the CETA and Chargeable to duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem. On 10.2.98 their Maruti car carrying 400 Mts of fabric was intercepted by the officers of Central Excise. The driver of that car deposea that he was carrying the goods for deli...

M/S. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for waiving pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.7,81,536.75. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri K.K.Anand, Ld.Counsel submits that the applicant is a manufacturer of Caustic Soda, liquid chlorine etc. The applicant is availing the facility of Modvat credit on chlorine containers used for transporting liquid chlorine.Ld. Counsel submits that chlorine containers are capital goods on which Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q is available. He submits that a small amount of duty has been demanded on M.S.Plates. He submits that items are capital goods and therefore, prays them since the items are capital goods for purpose of Rule 57Q, Modvat credit was admissible to them and therefore, prays, pre-deposit may be waived.2. Ld. Counsel also submits that the applicant is a loss making unit as is evident from the records. He submits that the applicant has gone for declaring it sick a unit by BIFR though no order for declaration has been passed so far. He, therefore,...