Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Shyam Ferrous Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT118TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Heard both sides. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and were discharging duty under the provisions of Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of Central Excise Act. The appellant made certain changes in the parameters of their furnace and the Commissioner vide order, dt. 7-1-2000 fixed the Annual Capacity of Production on provisional basis. Thereafter the Commissioner finally fixed the annual capacity of the appellants' furnace. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity to the appellant. The Commissioner vide impugned order after verification of the parameters fixed the annual capacity of the furnace. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that there are certain discrepancies in the parameters of the furnace. As pe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rajkamal Plastics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT312TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal dated 28-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the Joint Commissioner dated 29-12-99.2. The respondents were served with the show cause notice for disallowing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93 and 16/97, dated 1-4-97 on the ground that they were using the brand name of another manufacturer. After getting their reply, the adjudicating officer ordered confiscation of the goods, imposed redemption fine and penalties of various amounts as detailed in the order-in-original; that order has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The learned JDR has contended that since the respondents were using the brand name of another manufacturer, they were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification, therefore the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be reversed.4. On the other hand, the learned ...

Beeta Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC246Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Beeta Exports have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the Adjudication Order No. 47/2001, dated 31-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar.2. Shri Harish Chander, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants filed a Bill of Entry No. 2066, dated 20-10-1998 for the clearance of Acrylic Tow Waste classifiable under Sub-heading 5505.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 30/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997; that the consignment was purchased by them on high sea-sale basis from M/s. Garg Woollen Mills for Rs. 5,91,550/-; that the said Garg Woollen Mills had purchased the goods from M/s. Bollag International Corporation, U.S.A.; that the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned order, has held the goods to be Acrylic Tow falling under Subheading No. 5501.30 of the Tariff; enhanced the value to Rs. 8,23,452, imposed redemption fine, confirmed duty and imposed penalty of equivalent amount. The learned Senior...

Shiv Shankar Soni Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT833TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. 85,0007- under Section 112 of the Customs Act on account of seizure of 8 foreign marked gold biscuits weighing 116 tolas from him by the police officers of Katni Police Station which were later on handed over by the police to the Customs Officers.2. On recovery of 8 gold biscuits of foreign origin from the possession of the appellant, he was served with the show cause notice for confiscation of the same as well as for imposition of penalty under Section 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, as he failed to produce any document at the time of seizure about the legal possession and import of the same. During investigation, it also revealed that funds were being provided to him for import of gold biscuits by one Rakesh Soni and notice was also issued to him as noticee No. 2. They both controverted the allegations made in the show cause notice. The adjudicating officer ordered confiscation of the gold biscuits unde...

Dekay's Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corpo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)477; 102(2003)DLT584; 2003(66)DRJ451

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for permanent injunction against the NDMC (Defendant No. 1) and Pearey Lal and Sons Private Limited(Defendant No. 2) from interfering with the Plaintiffs' possession or dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the portion of the suit property admeasuring 30 x 40 sq. ft. in B Phase, Ground Floor, 13-29, Harsha Bhawan, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi shown in red in the Site Plan filed along with the plaint ( hereinafter referred to as the `Electric Sub Station' ) and also for restraining the Defendant No.2 from dealing with the said properties in any manner. An ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed on 8.3.2002 directing the maintenance of status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property. Arguments have been heard at length. 2. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 had entered into Agreements to Sell dated 24.2.1989 (Plaintiff No.1), 7.2.1989 (Plaintiff No.2) and 9.2.1989 (Plaintiff No.3). For the present purposes t...

University Grants Commission, Through Its Chairman Vs. U.G.C. Research ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)676; 102(2003)DLT753; 2003(67)DRJ600

Vijender Jain, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order of dismissal of its review petition by the learned Single Judge which was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this court. Briefly stating the facts of this case are that a writ petition was filed initially by the respondent no.1 herein. The said writ petition bearing CWP no.5090/2000 was disposed of by a consent order passed by the learned Single Judge. It will be important to note some of the salient feature of the settlement arrived at before the Court|'After some hearing a suggestion was made to work out to an amicable settlement to end the controversy in question. With the fair stand of both the counsel it has been possible to arrive at such a settlement which is recorded in the following terms. The counsel for the respondent states the petitioners who were initially appointed as Research Scientist under the scheme of UCG will be continued on the same ter...

Sangeeta Barring Vs. Air India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1(2003)ACC338; I(2003)ACC33; 2005ACJ2122; 2003IIAD(Delhi)167; 103(2003)DLT5; 2003(67)DRJ488; 2003(1)JCC368

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:On 19.4.1999 an air accident occurred at Mumbai while landing of an Air India's aircraft No.AI-411 returning from Singapore to Mumbai. Severe jerky movements while landing resulted in serious injuries to the petitioner and three others.2. The pilot/co-pilot applied speed brakes to the full position and induced inputs on the control column in excess of the permissible limits, resulting in the tripping of the autopilot brakes and consequently the aircraft encountered sudden jerky movements leading to the aircraft going into a sharp drop, ultimately resulting serious injuries to four persons including the petitioner.3. It is alleged in the petition that due to sudden dive of the aircraft and severe jerky movements, the petitioner who was doing her duties nose-dived and in fact went up and down and hit the ceiling of the aircraft thrice and injured herself seriously. The factum of...

Smt. Asha Gupta, W/O Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta, Vs. Mr. Ramji Lal, S ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1(2003)ACC272; I(2003)ACC272; 2004ACJ831; 2003IIAD(Delhi)1; 102(2003)DLT847; 2003(66)DRJ657

S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard.2. In an unfortunate accident which took place on 21st October, 1995 Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta (deceased) while traveling by his car no. DL-3CD-2021 from Karnal towards Delhi via G. T. Karnal Road along with two other persons, had reached near Babbarpur District Panipat, Haryana, then his car was hit by truck bearing No. RJ-14G-2841 coming from the opposite side. All the occupants of the said car sustained injuries. Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta died on his way to the hospital and was declared brought dead at the General Hospital. The claimants in this case, the widow-Smt. Asha Gupta, and the two sons Master Rahul Gupta and Master Rohit Gupta filed the claim petition. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') took the income of the deceased at the basic minimum wages for a semi-skilled worker at Rs. 1711/- per month and calculated the compensation. The age of the deceased was accepted as 35 years. One-third was deducted out of the average month...

J.K. Goe Vs. Grow on Marketing Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT197; 2003(68)DRJ75; 2003(26)PTC532(Del); 2003(2)RAJ351

Khan, J.1. Trade mark `Energic-31' is at the root of controversy. Appellant's suit No. 304/99 for infringement and passing off of this trade mark has been dismissed by trial court by judgment dated 9.3.2000. Hence this appeal. 2. Appellant is carrying on the business of manufacturing and trading in Ayurvedic medicines under various trade marks and claims to be the proprietor of trade mark `Energic-31' also. Appellant filed an injunction suit claiming that he had coined and adopted this Mark way back in 1980 and had used it ever since and prayed to restrain Respondents from using this and his trade name and trading style. He obtained an interim restraint also. 3. Respondents contested this suit and filed their written statement pointing out that appellant had supressed material facts and had failed to disclose that his two applications for registration of trade mark `Energic-31' stood dismissed by the Registrar of Trade Marks and that his pending third application was also liable to be ...

Shri M.S. Aggarwal Vs. D.C.i.T.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 2.1.2003 whereby block assessment made by the AO Under Section 158BC has been upheld.2. The block period involved in the present assessment is 1.4.1989 to 15.1.2000. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. That under has facts and the circumstances of the case, CIT (Appeals) was wrong in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. 2. That the Learned CIT (Appeal) has acted against the law by not considering all the Grounds of Appeal taken by the assessee. Therefore the order is liable to be cancelled. 3. That the search & Seizure Under Section 132 is illegal, void ab initio and was without compliance of the various provisions stipulated Under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the principles of natural justice were violated while conducting the search, recording the statement Under Section 131 in post search investigation and while passing the order Under Se...