Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Faridabad Metal Udyog Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of penalty of 50,000/-.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that at the time of verification of stock, certain shortages were found in respect of inputs. The applicants, on the asking of the revenue officers, deposited an amount of Rs. 3,30,829.00 under protest. He submits that as the duty amount is deposited even before issuance of the show cause notice, this application be allowed.4. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.6. Keeping in view the fact that the whole of duty has been deposited before issuance of show cause notice, the deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the appeal for regular hearing on 29.08.2001....

M/S. Hari Concast Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. On 23.09.95, a truck bearing no. PB-11 F 9866 was intercepted while coming out of the factory of the appellants and it was found that the truck was carrying steel ingots. On verification, it was found that the appellants made two clearances and no duty was paid on these clearances. The driver of the truck, in his statement, admitted that he also taken the steel ingots to the godown of M/s. Gupta Jee & Sons without payment of duty and the goods were unloaded in front of the godown. Steel ingots were also found in front of the godown of M/s. Gupta Jee & Sons. The ingots taken into possession. During the verification, 4.220 MTs of steel ingots were found in excess to their statutory record. These goods were also taken into possession. During the investigation, it was also found that ...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. J.K. Indus. Ltd.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of capacitors, parts of transformer and cables was allowed.2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondents.4. The contention of the revenue is that the goods, in question, are not covered under the definition of capital goods, as these are not directly related to the manufacture of final product as they did not produce or process or bring about any change in any substance in the manufacture of final product and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not given any finding in this regard. Now the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs Surya Roshni Ltd.reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 interpreted the provisions of Rule 57 Q of the Rules. The benefit of the Larger Bench Decision was not available before ...

M/S Gil Hospitals Ltd. Vs. C.C. New Delhi (Air Cargo)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Pre deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs by the appellants for the purpose of Section 129-E of the Customs act was directed. Compliance was to be reported today. When the case was called, none appears, nor is there any proof of compliance with the order. Hence we dismiss this appeal for non compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 129-E of the Customs Act. 1962....

Del Agha Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)639; 92(2001)DLT762; 2001(59)DRJ421; 2001(77)ECC190

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner prays for pre-arrest bail under section 438 Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) in a case being investigated by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in connection with smuggling of huge quantities of fabrics resulting in large scale evasion of Customs Duty.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.3. The facts relevant for disposal of this application, briefly stated are that on 28.8.2000 one Olga Kozireva, an Uzbek national was intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. It was found that she was carrying Chinese silk of the value of about Rs. 1.56 crores. she intended to smuggle it into India without paying Customs Duty, which was to the tune of about Rs. 50 lacs. When her application for bail came up before an additional Sessions Judge, certain observations were made by the Court expressing doubts that s...

Shri Surya Prakash Khatri and anr. Vs. Smt. Madhu Trehan and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3476; 2001(59)DRJ298

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Expressing concern at the scurrilous manner in which an article has been published, in a journal named 'Wah India,' scornfully denigrating Judges putting question marks on their integrity and competence, these petitions have been filed. According to the petitioners the article in obnoxious and is 'judge bashing'. As the petitions involve almost identical prayer, they are taken up together for disposal. It is alleged that in the name of freedom of press and fair journalism, borders of decency and respect for the judiciary have been overstepped and a distorted version has been presented which has lowered the image of judiciary and thereforee attracts stringent action. In the article in question, certain statements have been made which tend to cause aspersions on the integrity and capability of Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It is highlighted that without any material to support or even proper verification of the statements purported to have been made by some me...

M/S. Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Capital Territory of Del ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT331; 2001(59)DRJ511; [2001(91)FLR9]

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. This is an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the workmen. The proceedings were adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the Petitioner for effecting a compromise. Today there is a prayer for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Singla is out of country. Du to repeated adjournments granted at the instance of the Petitioner the request for an adjournment is declined.2. Reliance is now placed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on a decision of a Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Punjab States Electricity Board, Patiala through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, VOL. C (1991 PLR 591. In particular paragraph 11 thereof is relied upon. It reads as follows:'11. The only question which remains to be decided is whether respondent-workman would be entitled to any wages from the date of the award till the decision of this case. The motion Bench ha...

Vishnu Mohan Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3531; 93(2001)DLT748; 2001(59)DRJ676

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases Pages 706, the Apex Court laid down the tests to be followed by the prosecution when the case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. Those are reproduced as under :-1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else: and 4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of Explanationn of any other hypothesis that that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inco...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Avinash Pasricha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)257; [2001]251ITR360(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), D-Bench, New Delhi, for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the award of Rs. 30,000 to the assessed is not taxable as income ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction under Section 265 to cancel the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer as it has merged with the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1981-82.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed is an individual and derives income from his profession as a photographer. An all-India photography contest...

Shri Sunil Behl Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application arises out of appeal No.C/81/2001-NB filed by the appellant against the impugned order in original dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (G), New Delhi vide which he had ordered confiscation of the goods seized from his premises valued at Rs.4,93,80,856/- for violation of the provisions of Section 111(d) read with Section 11 of the Customs Act with option to get the goods redeemed on payment of the redemption fine equal to the value of the goods and imposed penalty of Rs.3 crore on him.2. The proceedings were drawn against the appellant under Section 124 of the Customs Act for confiscation of the miscellaneous goods of foreign origin, namely, crystal items, wall photo frames, crockery and cutlery electronic etc. imported in violation of the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Act. All the goods were seized from his residential premies at Faridabad in the presence of his wife Savita Behl and two independent witnesses in joint operation by the s...