Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments

Smt. Santosh Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)202; 108(2003)DLT510; 2003(71)DRJ788

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition raises an interesting question. To put succinctly, land of the petitioner was subject matter of Notification dated 13.11.59 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') proposing to acquire Khasra No. 410/1 in Village Malikpur Cantt., Delhi. After inviting objections, Declaration under Section-6 was issued vide Notification dated 20.9.1962 for acquiring the said land. This acquisition was challenged by filing CWP. No. 581-D/63.During the pendency of this writ petition another Notification dated 24.2.1965 under Section 4 was issued for acquisition of certain land in Village Malikpur Cantt., Delhi including Khasra No. 409 owned by petitioner's father. After completing the formality of inviting objection, the Declaration under Section 6 was issued by Notification dated 16.11.66. Interestingly no challenge was made to this acquisition by the father of the petitioner (predecessor- in- interest).Writ Petition No....

Ramesh @ Tillu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT107; 2004(72)DRJ299

Crl Appeal 91/20031. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.7.2002 and order of sentence dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant was held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17.9.1997 at about 1.45 P.M complainant Smt. Miti Jain came back to her Flat No. 46, Sector A, Pocket C, Vasant Kunj. At about 2.15 P.M when she was alone in the flat, door bell rang. She opened the door. She found one boy aged about 20-22 years standing on the door. He told her that her cable was out of order and he has come to rectify the cable. She allowed the entry to the boy who remained busy in repairing work for about half an hour. The complainant got busy in conversation with her mother on telephone. After some time, the boy asked her to bring a glass of water. She went to the kitchen. In the meantime boy closed the main doo...

Patni Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)228

ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.:These are two appeals, one by assessed and one by department and a cross-objection by assessed for block period 1-4-1988 to 17-3-1999.2. In the cross-objection filed by the assessed, which is in regard to challenging the legality of provisions of section 132(l) while completing assessment under section 158BC of the Act, was not pressed by the counsel of the assessed. thereforee, the cross-objection of the assessed is dismissed,3. Now we will take the appeals in case of assessed M/s Patni Chemicals Ltd. in IT(SS)A No. 108 (by assessed) and IT(SS)A No. 233 (by department). The brief facts, as stated in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are as under :'The facts in brief are that, as stated above, the assessed has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of calcium carbonate since its very inception from its factory situated at Patni, Chikana Road, Distt. Saharanpur. Its registered office is also situated at village Patni. It has been filing retur...

Haguru Engg. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC244

1. As these five appeals, filed by M/s. Haguru Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and others, have arisen out of a common Order-in-Appeal No. 547 to 551/2001, dated 27.9.2001 these are taken up for disposal together.Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Haguru Engg.Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 1, manufacture housing covers and pressure plates of clutch assembly according to designs and drawings of their customers, who are O.E. manufacturers of clutch assembly; that they have a small furnace for manufacturing castings of their products which are sent by them under Rule 57 F (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to M/s. Mansa Shotblasting Services for carrying out short blasting of the casting on job work basis; that from the premises of job worker, the castings are sent to two other job-workers, namely (1) M/s. Sainath Engineering and M/s. Harikrupa Engineering Works for carrying out machinery works on the castings; that on return, the goods are subjected to various other processes lik...

Vimal Moulders (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC653

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Vimal Moulders (I) Ltd. is whether the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act are attracted.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured both dutiable goods and exempted goods; that they availed Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that since raw materials for both their products dyes and plastic moulded furniture is common; that they pay the amount equal to 8% of the price of the exempted goods at the time of their clearance in terms of provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the said amount of 8% is being collected by them as cost of their product from their customers; that it is the case of the Department that their products being exempted, they have to deposit the duty collected by them at the rate of 8% with the Government as per the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the amount dep...

Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT385TriDel

1. This order will dispose of the above captioned four appeals. The first there appeals bearing Nos. E/577, 578 & 1024/03-NB (S) have been preferred against the common order-in-appeal dated 17.2.2003, while the fourth appeal No. E/1626/63-NB(S) has been filed against the order-in-appeal dated 1.5.2003. The issue involved in all these appeals being common, are being disposed of by this single order.2. The issue involved in all these appeals is, as to whether the movat credit is available to the appellants on the HDPE Bags/PP Jumbo Jags or not. According to the appellants, who are engaged in the manufacture of ABS bags, these bags are used as inputs by them. In some of these bags, they firstly store the ABS Powder and thereafter from those bags, the said powder is transferred for converting it into final product i.e.ABS Polymers Pellets. The authorities below have denied the credit by holding the same as packing material and not inputs, which stands excluded from the purview of Rule...

Bellis India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s Bellis India Ltd. the issue involved is whether Central Excise duty is demandable if the inputs are received back after reprocessing after 180 days of their clearance from the factory.2. Shri Suresh Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured steam turbines and parts thereof; that they had sent six sets of turbine parts for job work after reversing 10% MODVAT credit; that five sets were received within 180 days and only one set was received late by there days; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 56/2001 dated 27.7.2001 disallowed the entire credit of Rs. 29,714/- and order the recovery of the same holding that the goods were received after 180 days; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order has rejected their Appeal holding that under the provisions of Rule 57 F(8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the credit could be taken only after the entire quantity of inputs is received back in the...

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC50

1. M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. have challenged the disallowance of the modvat credit in respect of Splicing tape.2. After admitting the Appeal, I heard Shri M.P. Dev Nath, Advocate for the Appellants and Shri S. Bhatnagar, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the recorded audio cassettes manufactured by the Appellants became dutiable with effect from 1.3.97; that therefore, they have filed a declaration on 12.3.97 under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of stock of inputs lying in their factory premises; that the credit in respect of Splicing tape has been disallowed on the ground that the same had not been declared as inputs in the declaration filed under Rule 57 G; that Splicing Tape is nothing but self adhesive take for which the declaration had already been filed, that as the credit has been taken by the Appellants under Rule 57H, the condition of filing declaration before receipt of the goods in the ...

Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT331TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. 26/2003-B, dated 14-1-2003 [2003 (153) E.L.T. 336].2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that while passing the Final Order, the Tribunal has not decided the issue of penalty raised by them in Appeal as well as at the time of hearing of the Appeal. He, therefore, requested that the penalty imposed on the Applicants may be set aside in the interest of justice; that it was not a case of any clandestine removal; that in fact the Applicants had filed the classification list classifying the impugned goods under Chapter 63 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.3. Opposing the prayer, Shri Vikas Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the submissions made by the applications, had rejected their Appeal duly considering the plea relating to imposition of penalty also.4. We have considere...

Chander Monan Vs. Ranjeet Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT125; 2004(75)DRJ81

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the application of the appellant for compensation for the injuries received by him in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the DTC bus, was dismissed. The case set up by the appellant in the application was that he was sitting in the private bus going to Yumuna Vihar and when the bus was standing at the Bhajan Pura bus stand to drop and pick up the passengers, the offending bus came at a fast speed from the back side and while overtaking the bus in which the appellant was sitting, hit the same as a result of which the appellant fell down in the bus and received injuries. Because of the injuries, the appellant was stated to have been removed to the hospital where he remained confined to bed for three days and even thereafter he was treated regularly for the injuries received by him in the said accident. Because of injuries received by...