Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Smt. Sona Devi Vs. Dda and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ244

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order No.F-11(781)/87/LSB(R)/2813 dated 8th April, 1994, issued by respondent No.2. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to allot alternate developed residential plot No. 25, Block 'H', Pocket 3, Sector 18, Rohini, in view of acquisition of her land under the scheme of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land.3. The admitted facts are that petitioner was the owner of about 2 acres of agricultural land in Village Bhorgarh in the revenue state of Narela. The said land was acquired by the respondents vide award No. 19/78-79. Petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in lieu of the land which was acquired under the Scheme, known as Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of land in Delhi. Under this scheme, individuals whose land were acquired were entitled ...

Essang Nyong and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 92(2001)DLT196

1. Mr. Aggarwal, DG (Prisons) says that fresh list of 243 cases along with the CRO certificate has been forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for fixing the date. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is present and says that she has not received the clarification as to what type of cases could be included under the definition of petty offences which are to be taken up at jail premises. These Courts were held in pursuance to the letter of the Chief Justice of India dated 29th November, 1999. Para 2 of the said letter is reproduced as under:'I called for information from National Crime Bureau regarding the number of such under trial prisoners in the country but they are not maintaining statistics in this regard. However, in Central Jail, Delhi only over 9000 prisoners were languishing a as undertrial prisoners on 31st of July, 1999. According to one survey out of the total jail population in the country, undertrial prisoners constitute 73% many of whom involved in petty offence...

Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Acc Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned orar dated 31.7.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be 'capital goods', to the respondents.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' or not deserves to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 20001(42) RLT 817(LB). We have also gone through the impugned order and the record and in our view the submission of both the sides deserves to be accepted. The decision of the larger Bench in the above cited case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) when he passed the impugned order. The question, whether the disputed goods satisfy the definition of 'capital goods' requires to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of above said de...

M/S. Meet Electronics Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT485TriDel

The authorities below denied the appellants the benefit of Notification No.175/86 on the ground that the appellant was using the brand name of some foreign company and since the appellant was using the brand name "Meet National" on the products manufactured by them, they were not entitled to the benefit of exemption/concessional rate of duty under Notification No.175/86 dt.1.3.86 and hence the appeal before us.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Radio Cassettee-Recorder. The appellant affixed "Meet National" on their product. This was declared by them in the classification list in which they claimed the benefit of Notification No.175/86 dt.28.2.86. The Asstt. Collector while adjudicating the case held that the benefit of Notification No.175/86 was not availabe on branded goods manufactured by Small Scale Unit in India as 'Meet National' was nothing but an extended form of brand name 'National' the owner of which was not eli...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Mohan Meakins Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner disposed of 4 Orders-in-Original vide a common order. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate authority, the Revenue filed a consolidated appeal against all 4 orders-in-original which were disposed of by the appellate order, within the statutory period of limitation. Since the practice in the Tribunal is that as many appeals as there are Orders-in-original have to be filed, the Revenue has filed Separate appeals for which they (sic) of delay in filing.2. Learned Consultant, Shri K.L. Rekhi fairly leaves the matter of condonation of delay for decision by the Bench.3. In view of the above, I condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. All the appeals shall be listed for hearing in due course....

M/S. Antarctic Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Antarctic Industries Ltd., is whether they have revised their claim for refund of Customs duty.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate,mentioned that the Appellants had imported 153.210 MT Heavy melting scrap and filed Bill of Entry No. 365 dated 12.1.95; that as on examination the goods were found to be old and used pipes, the value of the goods was enhanced and Customs duty amounting to Rs.23,123/- was collected and Rs.5 lakh was imposed as redemption fine in lieu of confiscation; that, however on appeal the Tribunal, vide Final Order No.585/98-B2 dated 4.8.98, allowed their appeal; that accordingly the appellants filed a refund claim for the amount of duty and fine paid by them; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 6/98 dated 30.3.99, sanctioned the refund for Rs.5 lakhs only as according to him the Appellants, under their letter dated 8.3.99, had requested only refund of amount paid towards fine, that the Comm...

M/S. Raj Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee appellant against the impugned order 27.9.99 of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had disallowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute.2. When the matter was called none has come present on behalf of the appellants. They had prayed for the adjournment on the ground that the decision in Jawahar Mills' caes 1999 (108) ELT 47(1B) was awaited, but that decision had already been pronounced and in our view the matter can be disposed of in the light of the Larger Bench decision in CCE Vs.Surya Roshini 2001 (42) RLT 817(1B) wherein the correctness of law laid down in Jawahar Mills' case (supra) regarding the 'capital goods' had been examined and considered.3. The question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the definition of 'capital goods' or not for the purposes of claiming modvat credit, in our view requires re-examination by the adjudicating authority in the light of the Larger Bench decision in CCE Indore Vs.Surya Roshini ...

M/S. Jindal Strips Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi and Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of two appeals one filed by the appellants bearing No. E/3104/98-NB and another by the Revenue bearing No.E/2900/98-NB against common impugned order dated 7.9.98 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The issue involved in both these appeals relates to the 'capital goods' and availability of modvat credit thereon. The assessee has filed the appeal challenging the validity of the impugned order in respect of the goods on which modvat credit had been disallowed to them being not 'capital goods' while the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order in respect of the goods on which the modvat credit had been allowed.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' or not deserves to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 20001(42) RLT 817(LB). We have also gone through the impugned ...

M/S. Kushal Bagh Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Final Order No.A/1961/2000-NB dated 13.10.2000. Learned Counsel states that on that date, he was busy before Bench_B arguing for the respondents in the case of CCE vs. Lakshmi Oil and steel Rolling Mills-Appeal No.E/2771/2000-B and, therefore, cold not appear in this case. Learned DR fairly leaves the matter of restoration for decision by the Bench.2. In view of the explanation offered by the learned Counsel, I set aside the order of dismissal, restore the appeal and fix it for hearing on 17.7.2001. The application is hereby allowed....

M/S. Jyoti Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bombay

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellant. From the records placed before us, we note that notice for today's hearing was issued on 23.2.2001. The same was received by the appellants on 26.2.2001. Inspite of getting the notice the appellants have not appeared today. There is no request for adjournment of the case. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter further. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....