Delhi Court December 2002 Judgments

Continental Chemicals India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC461

1. M/s. Continental Chemicals India Ltd. have filed the present Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2002, dated 30-1-2002 under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim.2. Shri P.K. Mittal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Detergent cake as job worker of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd.; that in their classification list filed on 6-2-96, they mentioned rate of duty as 20% instead of 10% as per the Notification No. 12/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94; that accordingly, the excess duty was paid by them inadvertently and they filed refund claim in 1996; that the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 37/96, dated 24-1-97 held that they were not entitled for the refund as the excess duty had been passed on to the consumer and the Certificate given by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. could not be treated as an authenticated documents under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; that however, Commissioner (Appeals) in Order dated 448/98, dated 5-...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Didar Steel Complex P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC207

1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 144/2002 dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that deposit of Central Excise duty is not required to be made before claim of abatement of duty is made by the respondents M/s. Didar Steel Complex. Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri Atul Dixit, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that respondents manufactured non-alloy steel ingots in respect of which they opted to avail the abatement of duty under Rule 96 ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that as the respondents were having a furnace of 3 MT they were required to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 51 lakhs per month as full and final despatch of their duty liability; that during the months of August 1998 and September 1998 the Respondents instead of paying Rs. 5 lakhs each month, paid only 3.75 lakhs each month; that as the duty was short paid, a show cause notice dated 26.2.99 was issued to them for demanding the differential ...

Jaipur Golden Charitable Clinical Laboratory Trust Vs. Delhi Developme ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 105(2003)DLT277; 2003(66)DRJ350

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner, the registered private charitable trust has applied for the allotment of land to run a charitable hospital. The respondent/DDA vide letter dated 14th May 1985 informed the petitioner that it had been allotted a total area of land measuring 2.45 acres consisting of 2.0825 acres for hospital and 0.3675 acres for essential staff quarters @ 10,000 per acre and Rs. 6 lakh per acre respectively apart from the ground rent.2. The rates for institutional land were revised by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs per acre w.e.f. 1st April 1985 and thus, the petitioner was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 74,115/- which the petitioner so deposited.3. The petitioner was desirous of some additional land and the request of the petitioner was accepted by the petitioner vide letter dated 11th November 1987 for land measuring 1.53 acres and the petitioner was charged @ Rs. 8 lakhs per acre. The said lett...

Dr. Mahender Singh Dhaiya Vs. State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ1908; 102(2003)DLT592; 2003(66)DRJ616

R.C. Jain, J.1. The Appellant Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya, an Indian Orthopedic Surgeon stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Namita, a British National of Indian origin on the interveining night of 27th and 28th May, 1979 (their honeymoon night itself) in room No. 415, hotel Arenberg, Brussels, Belgium for dismembering and extensively mutilating and disposing of her body parts at different places in the city of Brussels in order to cause disappearance of evidence relating to the commission of crime. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with the stipulation that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. In this ap...

Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ2353; 102(2003)DLT765; 2003(66)DRJ572; 2003(87)ECC99

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of bail to the petitioner, who was arrested in case FIR No. 14/01 under Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only).2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no recovery of contraband was made form the petitioner and he was arrested in this case merely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused and alleged recovery of a diary from him in which the name of co-accused Dinesh Kumar was mentioned and it was recorded that the petitioner had supplied him the contraband. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that neither the alleged disclosure statement of the co-accused is admissible in evidence nor entries in the diary can be used in evidence against the petitioner to r...

Hegedus Lahel Csaba Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT868; 2003(66)DRJ569; 2003(87)ECC105

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal has been moved on behalf of the appellant who stands convicted under Section 20(B)(ii) and Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only). The appellant was sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of which he was ordered to undergo further RI for six months.2. The appellant who is a foreign national was a transit passenger from Nepal to Amsterdam. On the intervening night of 26th and 27th June, 1997, he was searched at IGI Airport New Delhi and was found to be in possession of 13.476 kgs. Charas. The appellant was put to trial. Learned Trial Judge after considering the prosecution evidence and the defense of the appellant convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. His appeal against conviction and sentence is pending disposal before this Court.3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellan...

The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford, Tradi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 103(2003)DLT139; 2003(67)DRJ184; 2003(26)PTC186(Del)

K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of I.A. Nos. 4425/02 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 red with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff and 5527/02 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants.2. Suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3, their officers, servants, representatives and agents from publishing, distributing, marketing and selling 'The New Communicative Course NETWORK ENGLISH' in Volumes (1 to 5), interalia, alleging that the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 24th August 1994 with defendant No. 3 and J.A. Mason and pursuant thereto the later jointly authored and delivered to the former for publication series of 3 books titled 'Communicate in English' and these books were first published in 1993-94 and revised in 1995-96. Revised books were brought out under the new title 'Learning to Communicate' series (1 to 5). Two special editions of books were brought out, one in 1997 which was meant for DAV Sc...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. D.N. Shukla

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. In all the above noted 151 matters common legal proposition involved is the same and as such with the consent of all the parties, the above noted matters have been heard together and the law point raised is being decided by this common order. 2. The facts of almost all the cases are similar inasmuch as on the basis of joint inspection carried out by the team of officials of the appellant, a case of Fraudulent Abstruction of Energy (in short FAE) was made out against the respondent and bills had been raised on the said basis which were being disputed by the respondents and the respondents had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as The Act) before the District Forum praying for the redressal of their respective grievances. The learned District Forum vide separate orders had allowed the complaints of the respondents and granted reliefs as detailed in the respective impugned orders. 3. Aggrieved ...

Freezair India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT321TriDel

1. These three appeals are against the Order-in-Original No. 23/2000, dated 28-9-2000 passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise confirming against M/s. Freezair India (P) Ltd. a demand of duty of Rs. 45,62,325/- under Rule 9(2} read with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A, imposing a penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q and imposing personal penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Kuldeep Singh Punn and Shri Narender Singh Punn respectively under Rule 209A. Appeal No. E/3572/2000-NB(D) is by M/s. Freezair India (P) Ltd. (in short, M/s. Freezair) against the demand of duty and the penalty of equal amount, and Appeal Nos.E/3573 and 3588/2000-NB(D) respectively by Shri Narender Singh Punn and Shri Kuldeep Singh Punn against the respective penalties imposed on them.2. Two Misc. applications are also before us. The Application No.397/2001 was filed by M/s. Freezair seeking to raise an additional ground in their appeal,...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Power Tech Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC127Tri(Delhi)

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that mere putting colour cakes in a box along with brush does not amount to manufacture.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of water colour boxes. Respondents were purchasing colour cakes from M/s. Ashok Enterprises and were putting these colour cakes in the box along with brush.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the colour boxes cleared by the respondents were known in the market as water colour boxes, which are different from the colour cakes, and this activity amounts to manufacture as per the definition of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.5. We find that the respondents are not manufacturing colour cakes.Respondents are only putting colour cakes with painting brush in a box.The issue is whether this activity, undertaken by the respondents, amounts to manufacture as per the provisions of Sect...