Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Euro CotspIn Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT312TriDel

1. This is a Revenue appeal. The respondents are a 100% ECU. They procured fuel for use in their plant in terms of exemption contained in Notification No. 1/95-C.E., based on the strength of CT-3 Certificate issued by the Range Supdt. The said notification was amended on 15-9-1998 vide Notification No. 31/98-C.E. and according to the Deptt., from that date the EOUs were required to obtain approval of Commissioner of Customs for obtaining Fuel Lubricants and consumable goods. This requirement was introduced (by Notification No. 31/98) at Sr. No. 3B of the Table annexed to the said Notification. The supplies obtained beyond 15-9-1998 (as detailed in the SCN) being without approval from the Commissioner of Customs, the exemption was proposed to be denied. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand which on appeal from the respondents was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals).The instant appeal from the Revenue seeks restoration of the order of the original authority.3. We note that, i...

Hellow Mineral Water (P) Limited Vs. Cce

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). In this case, a demand of Rs. 5,29,699/- was confirmed and a penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 11AC.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture mineral water and were discharging duty liability on fortnight basis. During the financial year, 2000-2001, the appellants defaulted the payment of Central Excise duty more than two times. On this ground alone, the facility of payment of duty on installment basis was forfeited for a period two months by the Deputy Commissioner in view of the provisions of Rule 173G (1) (e) of Central Excise Rules. As per the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the appellants were directed to pay Central Excise duty on consignment basis and by making debit entry in their PLA. The appellants paid some duty through PLA and some duty they had paid through modvat account instead of making payment throug...

Cce Vs. Diamond Wire Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC99

1. The respondents filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of copper winding and bare copper wire. The respondents opted for availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/99-CE and started clearing the excisable goods as per the SSI Notification No. 9/99-CE with effect from 1.4.99. Thereafter from 1.9.99, the appellants started paying normal rate of duty after filing fresh declaration. The adjudicating authority held that once the respondent opted for availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/99-CE, for the same financial year, the respondents cannot go out of the purview of the notification. The respondents filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal.4. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the condition 2(i) of Notification No. 9/99-CE a manufacturer who opted to avail the benefit of the notification cannot withdraw from the pu...

Shri Baldev Ram S/O Late Sh. Chauti Ram, Director (Horticulture), Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)69; 108(2003)DLT73; 2004(2)SLJ332(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by non-grant of selection grade from February, 1998 when the petitioner was appointed to the post of Director (Horticulture) in the DDA. It is the case of the petitioner that he fulfilledthe criteria for grant of non-functional selection grade since February 1998, in terms of office order based on Resolution No. 3 dated 19.3.1992 of the respondent. Mr. Kapoor has contended that the respondent had granted the selection grade to the petitioner from 1.2.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that even DPC which was convened for considering the case of petitioner for selection grade in August 2000 also recommended the grant of selection grade to the petitioner.3. On the other hand Mr. Anil Sapra counsel for the respondent has contended that when the petitioner was working as Dy. Director (Horticulture) following irregularities were found.'(a) Two works of nameplate of trees were got executed through w...

Modesty Garments Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)54; 108(2003)DLT105; 2004(175)ELT27(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition it is, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner did not have notice of the hearing before the Second Appellate Committee of the Ministry of Textiles in respect of its second appeal preferred against the First Appellate order dated 16.7.2001 which, in turn, arose out of the order of the AEPC dated 22.10.1997. The AEPC had by its said order forfeited the amount of Rs.4,78,379/- on the ground that the petitioner had not met its export obligation. This order was confirmed in First Appeal and although the petitioner sought the benefit of the force majeure clause, the First Appellate Authority did not feel that, in the facts of the case, the clause could be invoked. 2. The petitioner thereafter filed the second appeal before the Second Appellate Committee. Several notices for different dates of hearing have been issued from time to time. However, hearing was not held on those dates. Ultimately, the Second Appellate Committee passed an order on 14.7.20...

Mangalas Velji and Co. Vs. Mohan Kumari and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)27; AIR2004Delhi276; 108(2003)DLT484; 2004(72)DRJ165

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th January, 2002, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge, while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 23rd January, 1990, upheld the judgment of the trial court holding that the trial court was right in passing the decree of possession.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are as follows :'The plaintiff filed a civil suit for redemption and recovery of surplus against the defendant. The plaitiff's case before the ld. Civil Judge was that the plaintiff was the mortgagor of the land bearing plot Nos. 54, 55 and 56 comprised in the Khasra No.26/3, situated in village Khureji, Shahdara, Delhi measuring 600 sq.yards of which, the defendant was mortagee. The property was mortgaged on 3.5.1967 for Rs.10,000/-. As per terms and conditions of the mortgage deed between the parties, it was agreed that the p...

H.L. Mehra and ors. Vs. Inter Publicity Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)50; 108(2003)DLT102; 2003(71)DRJ779

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th November, 1999, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 22/99, whereby the learned Appellate Court has reversed the order and finding of the trial court in respect of mesne profits and damages for use and occupation of the premises in question based on the judgment of the High Court in Anjini Devi v. V.S.T. Industries Ltd. 1999 (5) DRJ 807 . 2. The question of law that arises for determination in this regular second appeal is whether the Appellate Court could have relied upon the aforesaid judgment to arrive at the conclusion that the law laid down is mesne profits can only be double the rate of the current rent. 3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the the Civil Judge are as follows :' The brief fact leading to the present case are that the plaintiffs stated that they are land-lords of the commercial flat identified as Unit No. 'F' measuring 820.25 Sq. ft. on the 12th floor in the multis...

Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi (Deceased Through Lr) Vs. the Embassy of Syria ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 108(2003)DLT536; 2003(71)DRJ482; 2003RLR85

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. On a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits being filed, the same was partly decreed in favor of applicant/plaintiff in regard to relief of possession only. The claim for mesne profits for use and occupation of suit premises was however, held barred for want of sanction in that respect under Section 86(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the plaint was accordingly rejected to that extent vide judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2003. 2. Aggrieved by rejection of plaint in regard to the relief of damages/mesne profits, the applicant/plaintiff has filed instant application with prayers to the following effect :'8 (a) an order and/or direction to the extent that the reference and/or mention and/or finding with regard to the issue No. 5 of damages and/or mesne profit which was never the subject matter of the judgment dated 31.3.2003 may be deleted andnecessary and/or appropriate clarification and/or modification may be issued and/or carried out; and (b)...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Iqbal Ahmad and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ89

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M. (M) 672 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.2002 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in M.C.A. No. 1 of 2002 whereby the learned Judge, while adjudicating upon an appeal against the order of the trial court/Civil Judge, Delhi, dated 21.11.2000 allowing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, held that the appeal was devoid of any merits and upheld the order of the trial court.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are that:'Sh. Abdul Ghaffar i.e. Father of plaintiff No. 1 and Shri Abdul Sattar i.e. Father of plaintiff No. 2 had purchased plot No. 40 in Hathi Khana Scheme, Bara Hindu Rao Road, Pul Bangesh, Delhi from Shri Mohd. Naqi in their joint names in the years 1944 and 1945.Both the aforesaid persons entered into an agreement in the year 1962 that they would let out the ground floor of the said plot after raising the construction over the same at monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. In the ...

Smt. Maya Jethanand Daryani and ors. Vs. Smt. Avtar Mohan Singh and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi79

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this judgment is Nos. 6043/2003, 7722/2003 and 7728/2003 moved by M/s. Mitsui and Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant', for short) are being decided. is No. 6043/2003 is an application moved under Section 151, CPC by the applicant, filing objections to the Order dated 17th July, 2000, decreeing the suit and Order dated 25th October, 2000, giving directions and appointing a Receiver for demarcation of Plot Nos. 28 and 28-A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. Prayer is made for modification of the Order dated 25th October, 2002 and keeping its operation in abeyance, till decision of the application. is No. 7728/2003 is an application moved under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, by the applicant seeking impleadment in the suit already decided on 17th July, 2000. The last is No. 7722/2003 is an application moved by the applicant under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 read with Sections 47, 141 and 151, CPC, to declare the decree passed in the suit as null and voi...