Delhi Court September 2002 Judgments

Nirmal Lakra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ151(Delhi)

ORDER MEETING AT ABOUT 131200 HRS 1st AT THE SAME PLACE (.) THEY PROMISE THAT THEY WILL RETURN. THE BSF PERSONNELS (.) MEETING ENDED AT CO-ORDIAL. ATMOSPHERE. Sd/-SWARN SINGHDY COMDT.' It has further been submitted that even another Protest Note issued by the BSF Commandant in reply to the Protest Note of the Bangladeshi counterpart was issued, but the same had not been made part of the proceedings.The learned counsel would contend that in terms of Section 87 of the BSF Act, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act would apply and in that view of the matter the purported Protest Note whereupon the entire prosecution case is based, was inadmissible in evidence as the maker of the report were not examined to prove the same. Even no attempt was made to summon the witnesses from Bangladesh for their examination by SSFC and, thus, a valuable right to cross-examine the said witnesses was lost.7. The learned counsel would contend that Shri B.K. Mehta, the Commandant, in the process of handin...

Ex. Havildar K.P. Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(3)SLJ463(Delhi)

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner herein joined the Army Service as a Sepoy in the Regiment of Artillery. At the relevant point of time, he was promoted to the post of Havildar in Non-Commissioned Officer's rank in the Army. He was selected for promotion to the post of Battery Quarter Master Havildar out of 10 Havildars similarly situated. He, during the afore-mentioned period, also acquired necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar which is in the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer. The petitioner as BQMH was responsible for receipt, issue and ledger accounting of all the stores belonging to the Brigade Headquarter as also their care, maintenance and security. Small arms and ammunitions belonging to the said Brigade are kept under lock and key in the Station Ammunition Dump under the charge of Station Ammunition Guard. The Ammunition Dump is backed up by security arrangements. On or about 25th October 1995, he had gone to the Ammunition Dump to draw 50 rounds ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Flex Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)668

ORDER1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), is directed against the consolidated order, dt. 8th May, 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E, New Delhi in ITA Nos. 705, 706/Del/1995, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that deduction under Section 32A of the Act should not be considered while allowing deduction under Section 80-I of the Act.2. Despite service, no one appears for the respondent-assessed.3. Since, in our view, the issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is no longer rest integra, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.In Motilal Pesticides (I)(P) Ltd v. CIT : [2000]243ITR26(SC) , the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question whether deduction under Section 80HH has to be allowed on net income or on gross income, having regard to the insertion of Sections 80AA and 80AB, has held that special deduction under Section 80HH is allowable only on the net inco...

Amar Singh Bhati Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT301; 2005(2)SLJ172(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is an Ex-Assistant Commandant who was serving with Border Security Force (BSF). He had joined the BSF as a Constable in the year 1966 and, after getting few promotions during his service career, had risen to the rank of Assistant Commandant in the year 1993. Giving an example of exemplary service he claims that on 20.9.1993 while serving in Kashmir Valley he killed four militants in an encounter and in the process he himself sustained five bullet injuries and a major bomb splinter in his belly which were extracted by a major operation. During his service career, he further claims, he had earned about 20-22 cash awards, good entries by various superior officers because of his meritorious and unblemished record of his services.2. However, according to the petitioner, he was implicated in a false case at the instance of Shri S.K. Ghosh, Junior Staff Officer (JSO) (General) and was tried by General Security Force Court (GSFC) w.e.f. 21.9.2000 to 23.10.2000 o...

J.K. Dhingra Vs. Narinderjit Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1 .The present appeal is directed against order dated 20.10.1998 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 687/1998 - entitled Shri J.K. Dhingra v. Shri Narinderjit Singh, Director-cum-Chairman, Okara Agro Industries Ltd. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the District Forum averring therein that the complainant had been lured, by the various advertisements issued on behalf of the respondent No. 1 regarding its sound financial position, into depositing an amount of Rs. 5,000/- each in the name of his two minor daughters viz Miss Koshi and Miss Shilelaza on 19.3.1997. The appellant also re-invested the proceeds of Rs. 5,000/- deposited earlier, for a further span of one year on 27.3.1997. The respondent issued post-dated cheque No. 680900 for Rs. 6,500/- in the name of Ms. Shilelaza and cheque...

Cc Vs. Ashish International (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC180

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ashish International Pvt. Ltd. had imported goods in containers No. LHCU-2962497 and GSTU-4464826, which arrived on 22/23/3/1999 at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The goods so imported, had been lying uncleared for more than six months as no documents were filed by the appellants to seek clearance of the same and this aroused suspicion. On the basis of suspicion, the containers, in question, were weighed on 4,9.99 and as per Weigh Bridge weighing slips No. 31 & 33, weight of the goods of container No. LHCU-2962497 and GSTU-4464826 was found to be 22,410 kgs. and 21,850 kgs.respectively. The weight so found was at variance with the weight declared in respective Bills of Lading and IGMs as 20,932 kgs. and 20,480 kgs. respectively.3. The contents of the container No. LKHCU-2962497 were examined on 21.9.99 in the presence of two independent witnesses....

indcon Projects and Equipments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT328TriDel

1. The issues involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Indcon Projects & Equipment Ltd. are whether Bulk Mix Delivery System (BMDS), manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 84.79 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 87.05 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and whether extended period of limitation for demanding Central Excise duty is invocable.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that BMDS is an equipment to mix more than two chemical ingredients which on mixture becomes explosive; that chasis mounted BMDS is then driven to the coal field site near the blasting hole and the prepared mixture is transferred into the blasting hole and BMDS is driven away; that it is thus apparent that the main function of the impugned equipment is to prepare a hazardous and highly explosive mixture and transferring the same into a blasting hole; that a BMDS can very well function without having mounted on a chasis; that i...

Laxmi Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT668TriDel

2. The Appellants had filed this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker and were availing the Modvat credit in respect of explosives used in their mines. A show cause notice was issued to the Appellants to recover an amount of 8% under Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules on the value of limestone cleared to their other unit without payment of duty. The demand was made on the ground that the Appellants were availing the Credit of duty paid on explosives used for getting limestone which were cleared without payment of duty.3. The contention of the Appellants is that they had already reversed the Credit taken on the duty paid on explosives, therefore, demand is not sustainable. The Appellants relied upon the Circular issued by the Govt. of India dated 16-10-2001. He submits that where a manufacturer in manufacturing excisable goods as well as exempted goods and were maintaining ...

Purify Filters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC539

1. The appellants M/s. Purify Filters manufacture Oil Filters falling under Chapter Heading 8421.00. They were issued a show cause notice dated 2-2-99 by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, in which it is alleged that on 28-8-98, the Central Excise Officers intercepted a Tempo bearing Regn. No. HR-30-6073 at Faridabad. Sh.Manoj Kumar, Driver of the tempo on enquiry stated that he had loaded the goods from the premises of M/s. Gauri Pack, NIT, Faridabad for delivery to M/s. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad. He produced a covering document which on scrutiny revealed that it covered 3000 pieces of oil filters and 200 pieces of liners in the brand name of 'Escorts' which were packed by M/s. Gauri Pack and the goods were received from the appellants M/s. Purify Filters, Faridabad, M/s. Lumax Filters Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon and M/s. Western Auto Spares, Ahmedabad. The Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the appellants M/s. Purify Filters, Faridabad. Sh. D.K. Mattoo, partner of...

Globe Synthetics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC576

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 5.2.2001 vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the duty with penalty against the company, appellants No. 1, and imposed penalties on the other appellants as detained in the impugned order itself.2. The appellants No. 1, M/s Globe Synthetics Ltd. (in short 'M/s GSL') is a company engaged in the manufacture of polyester yarn (texturised and drawn/twisted). They were served with a show cause notice dated 12.8.1997 alleging that they had manufactured polyester yarn during the period November 1994 to June 1995, weighing 497671.746 kgs from the POY, clandestinely received from the company, appellants No. 4 (in short 'M/s HPL') and removed the same clandestinely without entering in the statutory records, without issue of invoice and without discharging the duty liability. The penalty was also proposed to be imposed on appellants No. 2 & 3 being the Managing Director and Dir...