Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

Jagmal Vs. Tula Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)608; 106(2003)DLT322; 2003(70)DRJ284

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on the application of the appellant for readmission of the appeal which was dismissed in default on 24th August, 2003. 3. The case set up by the appellant in the application before the Additional District Judge was that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 24th August, 2003 when the son of the appellant who was also his attorney appeared before the court at 11.00 AM and requested for adjournment for filing documents. It was stated in the application that the case on such a request being made was adjourned to 23rd November, 2001. The son of the appellant after noting this date informed the counsel about the case having been adjourned to 23rd November, 2001 and the counsel made an entry of that date not only on the file of the case but also in his diary. It is submitted that when the appellant appeared in court on 23rd November, 2001 he did not find the c...

S.S. Sharma, Ias Vs. Directorate of Estates

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT579

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that he is willing to argue the matter on the basis of the pleadings already filed and he need not file a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent in view of the fact that the only question that is to be considered is whether the Office Memorandum No.12035(24)/77-Pol.II dated 15.2.84 is applicable to the petitioner or not. Counsel for both sides agree that interpretation of this Office Memorandum will decide the entire issue in dispute. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final argument and is being disposed of finally.3. The petitioner who was a Secretary to the Government of India, retired on 31.8.2002. At that point of time, the petitioner was in occupation of Government accommodation, namely, D-1/191, Satya Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner has continued in occupation of the said premises. On 3.1.2003, the petitioner was a...

Singapore Airlines Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ168; 2004(94)ECC332; 2004(175)ELT89(Del)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. An order dated 31 August 2001, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, hereinafter referred to as the 'reversionary authority', in petitioner's revision petition filed under Section 129-DD of the Customs Act, 1962, is under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the reversionary authority has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (FTT), New Delhi, imposing a penalty of Rs.2,07,840/- under Section 35A(1) {clarified in the impugned order as Section 38(3)} of the Finance Act, 1979 (as amended){for short the Act} read with Rule 4 of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 (as amended), for delay in the deposit of foreign travel tax (for short 'FTT'). Besides, a penalty of Rs.2,000/- under Rule 10-A and interest at 20% was also levied by the Assistant Commissioner for delay in furnishing of the return for the FTT collected. However, there is no serious ch...

Progressive thermal Controls Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT44TriDel

1. The appellant M/s. Progressive Thermal Control is a Pvt. Ltd. company, which manufactures 'Water Meters'. The entire production of these water meters is sold at an agreed price to M/s. Schlumberger Industries India Ltd. The purchaser is a subsidiary of M/s.Schlumberger Measurements & System, a French company. The water meters produced by the appellants were liable to pay Central Excise duty on the basis of their value. The appellants were discharging duty treating their sale price to M/s. Schlumberger Industries India Ltd. as the assessable value. Under the impugned order, Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-II has held that the appellant manufacturer and their buyer are related persons and therefore, duty should have been assessed on the sale price of the appellants' related buyer to their unrelated buyers. It is the finding in the impugned order that on account of adopting the lower sale price to the related buyer as the assessable value, there was a short-payment of duty of ...

Cce Vs. Twenty First Century Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Twenty First Century Steels Ltd., is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs is available to them on the strength of gate-pass endorsed three time.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of notice of hearing sent to them. I, therefore, heard Shri H.C.Verma, learned D.R., and perused the records. It is the contention of the Revenue that the Board in exercise of powers under first proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has prescribed gate-pass which has been endorsed twice as the document evidencing payment of duty for the purpose of availing Modvat Credit; that as the gate-pass endorsed thrice has not been declared as document evidencing payment of duty the Respondents were not take Modvat Credit on the strength of such documents. The learned D.R. also submitted that the decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Asian Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (Final O...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Matsushita T.V. and Audio (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT944TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the part of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit on the goods listed at serial Nos. 5, 10, 14 and 15 detailed in Annexure-A appended to the order-in-original, in all of Rs. 32,00,000/-.2. Learned SDR has contended that the condonation application was submitted by the respondents much before even receipt of the goods and this aspect has not at all been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also contended that no order allowing condonation of delay in the filing of declaration, was passed by the A.C. and as such, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not presume that it was a minor procedural lapse on the part of the appellants in not filing the declaration, when he even himself has not passed an order regarding condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned order, according to the SDR, deserves to be set aside and the matter be sent back for afresh decision.3. ...

Manglam Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC145

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. is whether CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs used outside the factory premises is available to them.2. Shri Pankaj Mullick, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture clinker and cement and avail CENVAT Credit in respect of duty paid on inputs; that the Revenue has disallowed the CENVAT Credit in respect of explosive used by them in their mines on the ground that these inputs were not used within the factory of production. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement vs. Commissioner, 2002-Taxindiaonline-97-SC-CX, has held that explosives which are used outside the factory by cement manufactures for excavation of limestone are eligible for duty credit an inputs; that therefore, inputs used by them in their mines are eligible for CENVAT Credit; that the definition of inputs in Rule 2 (f) of CENVAT Credit rules, 2001 does not...

Shri Mahesh Chand Vs. Sh. A.K. Chakravarty and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)ACC302; 2004ACJ880; 2003VAD(Delhi)292; 106(2003)DLT403; 2003(70)DRJ217; (2003)135PLR56

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. C.M. No.1056/2001 (condensation of delay) Since there was a delay in filing this appeal, the appellant has filed this application for condensation of delay in filing the same. It is stated in the application that the appellant was never served with the summons in the case by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and on coming to know of the award, he had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the same. His application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed and an appeal against the order of dismissal of the application was also dismissed by this Court. It was after the dismissal of the appeal on 26.9.2001 that the present appeal was filed on 01.12.2001 challenging the main award. It is submitted that since the appellant was bonafide and in good faith taking recourse to the legal proceedings for setting aside the ex parte award, there was a delay in filing appeal against the award and consequently there was sufficient cause for condensation of...

Shankar Adawal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)71; 2004CriLJ733; 106(2003)DLT230; 2003(70)DRJ186; 2003(3)JCC1435

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that inspire of accepting the contention of the petitioners that they have a right to be heard on the application under Section 473 CrPC filed by the respondent complainant seeking condensation of delay of four months, Shri P.K.Bhasin, learned ASJ vide impugned order dated 5th May, 2003 set upon to decide the said application which was beyond the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter be sent back to the learned CMM with the direction to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard on the application under Section 473 CrPC filed by the respondent complainant regarding the condensation of delay has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the CBI. Even otherwise the following observations of the learned ASJ sufficiently make out a case for setting aside the impugned order and sending the parties back to the learned CMM for decision on the appl...

Mohd. Khalil and anr. Vs. Haryana Roadways and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)ACC362; 2004ACJ1971; 2004IAD(Delhi)301; 107(2003)DLT56

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of their son on 13.1.2000 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent no.1 and being driven by respondent no.3. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as it has not taken into consideration the future prospects in his life and career and has also not applied the correct multiplier. 4. The deceased at the time of his death was 25 years of age and was unmarried. The father of the deceased, namely, appellant no.1 was stated to be 56 years of age whereas the mother/appellant no.2 was 50 years of age. Though, it was alleged in the application claiming compensation that the deceased was having an income of Rs.4500/- per month, however, there...