Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Shri Ram Rayon Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.14,242.00.3. The contention of the applicants is that they availed the benefit of credit on the strength of exchange control copy of bill of entry as they received the goods under this copy of bill of entry.4. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that duplicate copy of the bill of entry is a valid duty paying document. The revenue relies upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs Modi Rubber Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 197. In this case the Tribunal held that the assessee can take credit only on duplicate copy of invoice and in case the duplicate copy is lost during transit, the assessee can take credit on original copy of invoice with prior permission of the proper officer.The applicants availed the benefit of credit on the strength of Exchange can but bill of entry that too without permission of the proper offic...

Shashikant Sharma Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2 lakh under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses and also without effective personal hearing to the applicant. He submits that the applicant is not claiming the goods and the applicant is a poor fellow and is working as a salesman. He, further, submits that as per the adjudicating authority, the applicant acted as a courrier and he has to get Rs. 5,000.00 for this assignment.3. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that 45 cellular phones alongwith accessories of foreign origin were recovered frodsm the applicant and in his statement under Sec. 108 of the Custom Act he admitted the recovery of foreign origin cellular phones and the applicant also admitted that he was carrying these phones to be delivered to Vipin Kumar Bansal. The phon...

M/S. Sunder Lal and Sons Vs. C.C.E., Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.1,75,000.00 imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing of behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification and as per the small scale exemption, they were entitled for the clearance of the good upto the value of Rs.30 lakh without payment of duty. He submits that the applicants had already cleared the goods upto 13.2.97 of the value of Rs.27,20,000.00 and the seized goods were the value of Rs.2,17,000.00 Therefore, even if this amount is added to the total clearance, it is below Rs. 30 lakh. He, however, admits that no proper record was maintained by the applicants. In respect of unaccounted goods, seized in the factory, he submits that the goods were in the factory. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bkhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 2000 (91) ECR 569 (T...

M/S. Alok Paper Indus. Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the applicants.On the last date of hearing also, applicants were in represented.2. A copy of the notice was also issued to the consultant of he applicants. In these circumstances, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,075.00 and Rs. 17,927.00, are dismissed. The applicants are directed to deposit the entire amount of duty within a period of two weeks from the receipt of this order and report compliance on 18.5.2001....

Udai Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this application, the applicant has impugned the validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 29-12-1998 dismissing him from service. An appeal filed by the applicant against this order has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 9-7-1999 (Annexures A-1 & A-2).2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the aforesaid order has been passed after Departmental proceedings were held against the applicant. It was alleged against him that he had committed gross mis-conduct, negligence and carelessness in discharge of his official duties in that while posted in P.S. Narela and detailed for Sanlry duly on 6-2-1995, he did not report for duty and was marked absent. It was alleged that he had continued his absence without any information/permission of the competent authority. It was also mentioned that he had absented himself intentionally four times from duty earlier, for which the details were also given. The Departmental enquiry ...

Smt. Prem Saini Vs. Lieutenant Governor and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)820; 92(2001)DLT331; 2001(59)DRJ649

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner purchased 19.5 bids was of land in Village Ghazipur, Shahdara Zone, Delhi on 6.6.1967. The land was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector in the year 1971 by Award No.27/1970-71 without any notice to the petitioner.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the acquisition of her land when she had to appear before the Addl. District Judge, Delhi. The petitioner applied for an alternative plot of land pursuant to the policy of the respondent sin the year 1978. The case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot was rejected. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the plea that she has purchased land after issuance of notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner who is about 70 years of age, from 1981 to 1997 has been representing to various departments ...

Jasvinder Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)605; 91(2001)DLT230; 2001(59)DRJ567

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court praying for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) in case FIR No.178/2001 lodged at P.S. Shalimar Bagh under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC.2. I have heard Mr.Dinesh Mathur, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Sunil Kapoor, learned counsel for the State.3. The facts relevant for disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that on 25.3.2001, one Subhash lodged an FIR alleging that on that day, he had gone to Kirti Nanak Petrol Pump, AP Block, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi and purchased petrol for Rs.50/- vide a receipt issued in his favor. After traveling about 30 kms. from Shalimar Bagh, he observed that his scooter had again gone into reserve and as such, he felt that the petrol supplied to him was short in quantity. He made certain enquiries around the petrol pump and came to know that the petrol dispensing units in the said petrol p...

Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma Vs. Mr. Kapil Kumar Sharma and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)949; 91(2001)DLT522; 2001(59)DRJ86

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in respect of para 13 of the plaint as to rectification of the factual error in respect of the order dated 13 May, 1997 passed by the learned Trial court before whom the earlier suit was filed by the plaintiff. Main objection raised by counsel for defendant No.1 is with regard to the maintainability of the suit itself as the same is barred by provision of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC 2. A suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff in the court of learned District Judge valuing the pecuniary jurisdiction below Rs. 5 lacs but when it came to the notice that pecuniary jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 5 lacs but when it came to the notice that pecuniary jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 5 lacs and thereforee the court of Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to try the suit, an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC was moved by the plaintiff seeking withdrawal of the suit with the permission to file a fresh suit in the...

indigo Radio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)865; 92(2001)DLT222; 2001(59)DRJ135; 2001(60)ECC637; 2002(1)RAJ448

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing condition No. 3 in the letter of intent dated 2.8.2000. In addition directions are sought for refund of the earnest money deposited as well as the advance license fee of Rs. 75,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.2. The petitioner had earlier filed civil writ petition bearing No. 6791/2000 wherein the following reliefs were sought:(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing the Condition No. 3 in the letter of intent dated 2.8.2000 issued by the Respondent in favor of the petitioner.(b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to grant an extension of 8 weeks to furnish the Bank Guarantee and execute the license Agreement;alternately the Respondent amy be directed to refund the earnest money deposit of Rs. 1.5 lac and the Advance licenses Fee of Rs. 75 lacs Along with interest @ 24% per annum.(c) Pass such other and f...

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Vs. M/S. Mayur Exports and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)802

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Plaintiff is a banking company constituted under the Jammu & Kashmir companies Act. One of its branch offices is at Baba Kharak Singh Marg (Irwin Road), New Delhi. The defendant No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern of the defendant No.2. The defendants approached the plaintiff bank with request to grant packing credit loan. The defendants also opened a current account No.710 with the aforesaid branch of the plaintiff bank. Packing credit loan of Rs.45,000/- was granted and this amount was credited in the aforesaid current account. Thereafter defendants requested for grant of export credit facilities and after examining the proposal of the defendants, the plaintiff bank granted the following export credit facilities:a) Shipping Loan Rs.2,00,000/- ](Rupees Two lacs only) ] Overall Rs.2,00,000/-] (Rupees Two lacs only)b) Packing Credit Loan Limit ]Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees Seventy ]five thousand only) ]c) Purchase of Foreign ]Documentary Bills of ] Overall Rs.3,25,000/-R...