Delhi Court May 2003 Judgments

Genuine Spares (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT194TriDel

1. These are applications filed by the appellants in Appeal Nos.C/79-81/2003-NB(A) seeking dispensation with the pre-deposit.2. The appellant M/s. Genuine Spares India had imported a consignment of floor sweepings of plastics and acrylic sheet off cuts vide invoice No. 2327, dated 28-6-96. The total CIF value declared in the invoice was US $ 20203.71. Bills of Entry Nos, 82 and 83, dated 31-8-96 were filed. The declared CIF value and assessable value on which clearance was allowed are given below :- 3. The imports by M/s. Genuine Spares (India) were effected through their supplier in Singapore and the actual shipment of the consignment was made from Antwerp, Belgium. Inquiries were made by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Jaipur (DRI) with Belgium Customs through the High Commission of India, Great Britain for ascertaining the actual value of the goods. It was reported by the Belgium Customs that the consignments imported vide Bills of Entry Nos. 82 and 83 both dat...

Vijay Khanna Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT995; 2003(69)DRJ455a

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/506/120-B IPC, the petitioner, Vijay Khanna, by moving instant petition, seeks his release on bail.2. In response to an advertisement emanating from the petitioner-accused, one Tarsem Goyal came in contact with the petitioner-accused who claimed himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Viva Vision , E-224, Sanik Farm, New Delhi. Misrepresenting himself as an agent of a USA based buyer and also as consultant and agent of certain London based companies, the petitioner-accused promised to secure orders for export of carpet, durries, bed covers, worth Rs.1.2 crores to USA based buyer in connivance with his co-accused Kirpal Singh, General Manager of M/s. International Trade Factors Limited(ITFL), New Delhi. He got letters of credit opened with an intent to make said Tarsem Goyal(complainant) believe that he was there to help him in supply of his goods and in securing his payments. He is alleged to ha...

Murari Lal Goel Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ4044; 105(2003)DLT438; 2003(69)DRJ570; 2003(2)JCC1028

B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. The petitioner made an application before the learned ACMM, Delhi requesting for taking cognizance against one Dr. Rakesh Gupta and the management of Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and to issue summons to them in pursuance of a charge sheet filed by the prosecution in case FIR No. 635/98 under Section 304-A IPC. The learned trial court, however, disallowed the application on the ground that after having taken cognizance against the accused named in the charge sheet and having issued summons to them, it was no longer permissible to him to issue summons to any other persons unless evidence is brought forth showing complicity of such persons for the commission of crime in question, in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that issue of summons to the accused persons named in the charge sheet was no bar against exercise of power vested in the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence against the aforesaid persons, ...

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 105(2003)DLT430; 2003(69)DRJ555; 2004(1)SLJ98(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR791

Vijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 1.12.1992 for a period of five years or till the attainment of the age of 62 whichever was earlier. He was an officer of the Indian Postal Service after having been selected in All India Allied Services Examination in 1959. He was serving as Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra in the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India. At that stage he was offered the post of Member (Administrative) of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He was given an appointment at Patna Bench vide order dated 01.12.1992. The petitioner joined the Patna Bench on 20.01.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that he suffered ill health in Patna from the period March 1993 to September 1993 and had to take extra ordinary leave for 39 days without pay and allowances on medical grounds. On this score an amount of Rs. 1560/- which was paid to the petitioner on account of allowance ...

Shri Rane Parkash and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)222; AIR2003Delhi415; 105(2003)DLT373; 2003(71)DRJ703

ORDER xxxvII, RULE 3 ) Suit No. 36/02 CA 4393/02 SHRI RANE PARKASH ......... Plaintiff. Versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ......... Defendant. To Central Bank of India,The Asstt. General Manager, 72, JanpathNew Delhi-110001 Upon reading the affidavit of the plaintiff the Court makes the following order namely Let all parties concerned attend the Court on the 6th date of September, 2002 at 11.am in the forenoon on the hearing of the application of the plaintiff that he be at liberty to obtain judgment in this Suit against the defendant ( or if against one or some or several, insert names ) for Rs. 34,98,130/- and for interest and costs. Dated the 16th day of May, 2003. SUPPEINTENDANT (O)For REGISTRAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) Suit No. 36/02 SHRI RANE PARKASH ......... Plaintiff. Versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ......... Defendant. To Central Bank of India,Through Asstt. General Manager, 72, JanpathNew Delhi-110001 WHEREAS the plainti...

Safari Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.D. Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(27)PTC72(Del)

Malimood Ali Khan, J. 1. The defendant has filed this application for stay of the proceedings in the suit till the rectification proceedings No. DEL 721 in respect of the trademark No. 34820 in clause 12 are finally disposed of as required by Section 111 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short the Act).2. In the application it is alleged that the suit is filed by the plaintiff on the allegation of infringement of its registered trademark No. 34820 in clause 12 which in the name of one Subhash Gupta who was trading as M/s. Safari Cycles. Subhash Gupta is not a party to this suit. The defendant No. 3 M/s. Safari International of which the defendant No. 1 and Smt. Rekha are partners had filed a rectification petition under Sections 46 and 56 of the Act. This business was constituted in the year 1994-95 and soon thereafter they filed a rectification application against the aforesaid registered trademark on 24.2.1995 before the Registrar of Trademarks, New Delhi which is pending...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Global Agencies (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Del)1086

ORDERT.N. Chopra, A.M.This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-1-1998, for the assessment year 1994-95. The sole ground raised by the revenue is against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 40,50,000 made by the assessing officer as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The revenue has raised the ground as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred(i) in holding that the credit balances represented security deposits/performance guarantee and not loans or advances and thereby holding that the assessed's case did not fall within the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.(ii) in holding that the amount of Rs. 40,50,000 did not represent deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) despite the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M.D. Jindal v. CIT : [1987]164ITR28(Cal) .'2. On behalf of the assessed, Shri Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appeared ...

Vinod Kumar Nagrath Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter refrred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 12.6.2002, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1776/1996 entitled Shri Vinod Kumar Nagrath v. Delhi Financial Corporation. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Vinod Kumar Nagrath had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. That complaint, filed by the appellant, was dismissed in default by the District Forum vide order dated 18.5.1999. Thereafter, after a lapse of more than 3 years the appellant filed an application for the restoration of the complaint, dismissed in default vide order dated 18.5.1999. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed that application, filed b...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ratlam Straw Board Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT704TriDel

1. The prayer in this Misc. application is that Final Order No.A/1074/2002/NB(S), dated 28-8-2002 - [2002 (148) E.L.T. 1125 (Tri. - Del.)] passed in the Revenue's Appeal No. E/1073/2002/NB(S) be recalled and the appeal of the Revenue be disposed of along with the cross objections filed in that appeal by the present applicants. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the applicants that the cross-objections did not happen to be considered by the Bench at the time of passing the above final order. Heard ld. DR also, who admits that the party's cross objections are also on the record of the case.2. Having examined the records of the case and the submissions made by both sides today, I find that, when the final order was passed, the cross-objections of the respondents in the Revenue's appeal were available on record. The bench, however, had no occasion to consider them as the Registry had not duly numbered and posted the cross-objections before the Bench in spite of a specific direction in thi...

Magnum Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT447TriDel

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of printing/writing paper, duplex board, coated paper etc. falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. They manufacture their products from waste paper purchased indigenously or imported. They are availing the credit of duty paid on various chemicals used in the manufacture of their final products.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 65,69,795/- to the appellants in respect of Caustic Soda Rakes, Soda Ash and Titanium Dioxide for the period August, 2000 to March, 2001. The denial of the credit was on the ground that 627 MTs of Caustic Soda/Flakes, 1282.225 MTs of Soda Ash and 311.675 MTs of Titanium Dioxide had not been used in the process of manufacture of final products. The Commissioner also demanded interest on the above amount and imposed penalty equal to duty, on the party. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Parveen Jain, the then Director of th...