Delhi Court February 2002 Judgments

Mahabir Prasad and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC159Tri(Delhi)

1. Ms. Reena Khair, learned Advocate submitted that in view of the availability of the Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs, the demand confirmed against M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Sons is not being contested; that in the present two appeals only the penalty imposed on both the Appellants are being challenged. The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufactured tin containers on which duty was demanded and penalties were imposed on the ground that the Appellants were using power in the manufacture of tin containers and also by clubbing the clearances of another unit with the clearances effected by the Appellants; that as the Modvat credit available to them is more than the duty confirmed against them, there could be no intention to evade the payment of Central Excise duty; that proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act will have no application in such circumstances. She relied upon the decision in the case of Industrial Electronic and Allied Products v. CCE, Pune, ...

Supreme Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT392TriDel

1. The appellants manufacture Polyester Filament Yarn (Texturiscd) falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 5402.32. They are obtaining Polyester filament yarn subject to texturising and twisting. On scrutiny of their RT 12 return for the month of September, 1995 and October, 1995, it was observed that they had not paid the duty on twisting charges amounting to Rs. 8,45,965/- and thus short paid duty amounting to Rs. 4,86,200/-. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against them and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 29-10-99 confirmed the duty as aforesaid under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The party filed an appeal but the same is rejected vide order dated 21-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The appellate authority, however, reworked out the duty liability to Rs. 3,08,845/-.3. The present stay petition is against the impugned order dated 21-9-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals), C...

Smt. Saraswati Devi Gupta Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This is an application moved by the appellant in Appeal No. 249/2001 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order dated 31.8.2001. From the certified copy of the impugned order filed, it transpires that application for a certified copy was moved on 3.9.2001 and the same was delivered to the appellant on 10.9.2001. Since time for filing the appeal is 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the impugned order, the appeal could be filed in time by 23.10.2001.In fact, the appeal has been filed on 16.11.2001, making a delay of about 25 days.2. The grounds for condonation of delay, as have been taken in this application, are that from 23.9.2001 till 20.10.2001, the appellant was seriously sick and was suffering from acute depression and drowsiness.A certificate to that effect has been filed. It has been averred that when the appellant was in a position to sign the memorandum of appeal, it reached her Counsel at Delhi after signature on 25.10.2001 and by that date, ...

K.K. Modi and anr. Vs. M.K. Modi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)386; [2002]112CompCas133(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT386; 2002(62)DRJ465

Mukerjee, J.1. This application has been preferred by applicants B.K. Modi, Along with V.K. Modi, who have agreed to purchase certain shares of M/s Modi Rubber Limited (hereinafter referred to as MRL) held by M/s Modipon pursuant to a process of public officer, @ Rs. 90/- per share (as against the stock market reflected share value of about Rs. 50/- per share). The relief claimed in the application is that either the amount of Rs. 8.27 crores jointly deposited by them, in the ESCROW account, should be paid back to them or the shares should be transferred in their favor since they have paid the complete consideration amount in relation to the said shares. The text of the prayer made, may be quoted for convenience of reference:-(a) pass an order modifying varying its order dated 2.7.2001 and permitting the transfer of shares of Modi Rubber Ltd. lodged by Modipon Ltd. pursuant to the Public Officer in favor of the Acquirer subject to deposit of consideration in this Hon'ble Court or on su...

Del Agha Vs. Rakesh Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)321; 97(2002)DLT87; 2002(62)DRJ299; 2002(81)ECC29; 2002(144)ELT277(Del)

K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4th January, 2002 passed by ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi dismissing the application of petitioner/accused under Section 210 Cr.P.C. 2. Connected with the recovery of Chinese silk textile on 28th August, 2000 from Ms. Olga Kozireva/accused, a complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962 has been filed by the Customs and RC. 5(E)/2001 under Sections 120-B IPC read with 420 IPC and 13(1)(d)(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and substantive offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act has also been registered by SIU(IX) branch, CBI. Latter case is still under investigation. In the complaint, the petitioner filed application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. for stay of proceedings till the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the case registered by CBI and by the order under challenge the application has been dismissed by ACMM, Patiala House Courts before whom the complaint...

G.K.K. Pillai and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)157; 97(2002)DLT395

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. The present petition has been filed by the Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Radio Operators/Ciphers/Radio Mechanics) working in the Border Security Force. Dr. Shyamala Pappu, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that as there were anomies in the existing rank structure and pay scales of various cadres in the Central Police Organisations including the Border Security Force, the matter was referred to 5th Pay Commission. The 5th pay Commission after considering the anomalies in the rank structure and pay scale of the Central Police Organisations recommended parity among the employees of different Central Police Organisations in respect of rank structure, pay scale and other service conditions.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide its letter dated 30th September, 1997 duly notified in the Gazette of India, after careful considerations of the recommendation of the 5th pay Commission which inter alias contained Clause 7 to the followin...

State Bank of India Vs. State, Through Labour Enforcement Officer, Cur ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)384; 97(2002)DLT94; 2002(62)DRJ325; [2002(94)FLR469]; (2002)IILLJ648Del

K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner-accused seeks quashment of the complaint dated 25th September 1997 filed by the respondent.2. Complaint (Annexure P-2) was filed by the State through Labour Enforcement Officer (C) alleging that branch at 11, Sansad Marg of the petitioner bank was inspected by complainant-respondent on 9th July 1997 and work of sweeping and cleaning of premises there was found being done through Ajay Kumar, Contractor by employing 6 contract labourers. As per notification No. 779(E) dated 9th December 1976 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short the 'Act') work of sweeping and cleaning is prohibited category of employment and punishable under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner is the principal employer as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act for the said work. It was prayed that petitioner be summoned and tried for...

Sh. Prakash Chander Srivastava and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)525; 97(2002)DLT340; 2002(62)DRJ405; 2003(1)SLJ198(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition can be disposed of in view of the order passed by Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. National Forum of Special Assistants and Ors. C.W. No. 1573/86, decided on 14.2.95. That was a case where the Calcutta High Court was considering case of Special Assistants in Oriental Fire and General Insurance inter alias praying that they may be categorised as Superintendents. The Calcutta High Court answered the question in affirmative. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of Calcutta High Court.2. In the case before hand, counsel for petitioners has contended that petitioners were denied their due category under the Scheme by virtue of paragraph 5(2) (b)(ii)(A) as their categorisation ought to be as Senior Assistants with consequential benefits of enhanced pay and status from 1.1.73.3. It was further contended by Sh. Mishra counsel for the petitioners that the responde...

S. Malaichamy Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)564; 97(2002)DLT277; 2002(62)DRJ483; 2003(1)SLJ155(Delhi)

Devinder Gupta, J.1. Writ petition No. 7859 of 2001 by S. Malaichamy, aserving IAS Officer, who was already holding the post of Managing Director, DelhiKhadi and Village Industries Board, was given the additional charge of the Election commissioner for the National Capital Territory of Delhi till further order, in termsof Notification (Annexure P1) dated 12.1.2001, primarily is to challenge the order(Annexure P5) dated 13.12.2001 issued by the Lt. Governor by which Shri M.P. Tyagi, a retired IAS Officer has been appointed as the Election Commissioner forDelhi simultaneous therewith the assignment of the petitioner to hold additional charge of Election Commissioner, has been brought to an and. The prayers made inthe writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a re:'(a) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate write quashing the aforesaid notification issued by the respondent No. 3 by order and in the nameof Lt. Governor, respondent No. 1 and the removal of th...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdish Chandra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ151

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard the parties.The following impugned order was passed by this Court in Civil Writ No. 5763/98 & CM 11010/98 on 13th January, 1999.'In the meanwhile, the operation of the recovery certificate dated 1.12.1998 is stayed on the condition that before the next date of hearing, the petitioner may deposit the said amount in this Court.'2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the stay order, the respondent has collected the cheque of Rs. 2,12,507/- in violation of order dated 13th January, 1999 and before the dated fixed, i.e. 26th July, 1999. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the order dated 13th January, 1999 could not become operative on account of the fact that the 'condition' that the before the next date of hearing, the petitioner may deposit the said amount in this Court was not complied with.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount has not been deposited in this Court. Instead, the amount was deposited before the Recovery Offic...