Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Afcons Pauling Joint Venture Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT449TriDel

2. By the present application, the appellants have prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 51,31,484.55 and the penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs which has been confirmed against them through the impugned order by the Commissioner. The perusal or the impugned order shows that this duty has been demanded from the appellants in respect of the stones crushed by them, for the purpose of use in the construction of the bridges, But, whether this activity amounted to manufacture has not been answered in the impugned order, by the adjudicating authority. It is a question which requires detailed scrutiny of facts and circumstances brought on record. We also find that earlier the Tribunal set aside the order of the adjudicating authority by referring to the issue of limitation and also the marketability of the items manufactured by the appellants including he crushed stones. The case was ordered to be decided afresh in accordance with law, by the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 16-12-99. B...

Jay YuhshIn Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC308

1. The appellant in this case challenges the classification of "heater control lever" and "panel heater control' (Hereinafter referred to as, "impugned goods"). The company is manufacturing auto-electrical, mechanical and electronic equipments. A major portion of applicants' production is sold to M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. Gurgaon (for short "MUL").Whatever duty is paid by the applicants on the items manufactured and cleared by them. MUL takes the same as MODVAT credit 2. Applicants started manufacture of the impugned goods from the year 1991-92. These items are used in the various models of Maruti cars both A/c and non A/c like Esteem, Maruti 1000, Zen Gypsy, 800 cc etc. They filed classification lists with the Central Excise Department under Rule 173B of the Rules from time to time. In these classification lists, applicants claimed classification of these two items under Heading No. 84.14, sub-heading No. 8414.99. All these classification lists were approved by the Department from time t...

Tulsi Das Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT725TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by Shri Tulsi Das Agarwal the issue involved is whether the gold biscuits of foreign marking and Indian currency belonging to him is liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant, a resident of Rath in District Hamirpur (U.P.), earns his livelihood from trading on textile goods, agriculture and pawning; that a person whom he was having some land dispute with was killed in which he along with his sons were implicated by the family of the deceased; that the female members of his family transferred the valuables and cash, registers, etc. to the house of his neighbour, Shri Rakesh alias, Kallu, for the purpose of safety; that the Police was on the look out of the Appellants and his sons as a FIR had been lodged against them; that Kallu divulged about the transfer of the valuables to his house to the Police which seized the same on 18-3-2000 from the house of said Kallu; that t...

Ex. Havaldar Kailash Singh and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)357; 106(2003)DLT660

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and/or order dated 02.12.2002 passed by the learned ADJ in appeal preferred u/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the petitioner against an order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer on 09.11.2002. 3. The premises in question, i.e. Shop No. 100/1, Shekhawati Lines, Delhi Cantt was allotted to the petitioner by virtue of a license agreement dated 01.09.1997 for running a general goods/vegetables and milk shop initially up to 31.08.1998. It is an admitted position that the license agreement was renewed from time to time and lastly a fresh license agreement was entered into for the period 01.06.2002 to 30.04.2003. Thereafter, a notice dated 15.06.2002 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. for vacation of the said premises. The notice ...

Hilal Filling Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)139; 109(2004)DLT410; 2003(70)DRJ705

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Petitioner is the respondent's dealer for the retail sale or supply of petrol/HSD/motor oil/grease and such other petroleum products as may be specified by the respondent. The dealership of the Petitioner is situated at Hassanpur Road, Sambhal, District Moradabad (U. P.). The Petitioner was appointed as such dealer by virtue of an agreement executed by and between the Petitioner and the respondent on 15.02.1995.2. The question for consideration is whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. The nature of the present petition is indicated by the prayer. The Petitioner has sought an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent not to contemplate/take any action including suspension of supply on the basis of the inspection dated 5.7.2003 in respect of the petitioner's said retail outlet without comparing the drawn sample with the mother/reference sample. Whether such a writ can at all be issued, is ano...

Anil Kumar Etc. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)400; 106(2003)DLT524

ORDERCrl. W. No. 39/2003 :1. Pertaining to Shop No. 3 of property bearing Municipal No. 64/B, Sawan Park Extension, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52, cross-complaints came to be filed between petitioners 1 to 4 on the one hand and petitioners 5 to 14 on the other. In all, 11 criminal cases came to be filed. Parties settled their disputes and based on settlement have filed the present petition that the FIRs and criminal proceedings pending between the parties be quashed. Since it was noticed that except for FIR No. 239/90 and FIR No. 238/90 all other cases are compoundable, Counsel for the petitioner stated that he restricts the petition to FIR Nos. 239/90 and 238/90 and leave be granted to him to apply to the concern Courts for compounding of the rest of the cases. Leave granted.2. Today, in Court, Anil Kumar and Om Prakash have filed affidavits which are taken on record. Anil Kumar the complainant in FIR No. 238/90 under Sections 452/324/323/34, IPC, P.S. Ashok Vihar proceedings pursuant whereto...

Social Jurist, a Lawyers Group Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT474

ORDER1. It is a very sorry state of affairs that in the capital of the country, despite the petition being filed by a citizen, required actions have not been taken up by any of the authorities and school children are required to sit either under tin-sheds or in open for the purpose of education. 2. So far as the Director of Education is concerned, it is pointed out that there are in all 11000 schools which are operating in 633 sites in two shifts. 357 schools have puce buildings while 251 schools are running in semi puce buildings. 21 schools are running in tin-sheds on the ground that the lands are not made available to the Government or there is a dispute. It is required to be noted that in the city, there are many private schools and it is on account of this, the burden of the Government or the MCD is reduced a lot. Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India are required to be reproduced at this juncture.Article 41: 'Right to work, to education and to public assistance in c...

K.L. Shroff Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT958

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,53,445.61 p.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows. The plaintiff No. 1 K.L. Shroff is the sole trustee of plaintiff No. 2 K.L. Shroff Family Trust under the registered trust deed dated 1.7.1978. The trust is carrying on the printing work in the name and style of M/s. Nu Tech Photolithographers, plaintiff No. 3. The defendant State of Haryana awarded the work of printing of lottery tickets for the period 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1986 and 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987 under an agreement. In terms of the agreement, the defendant was responsible for supplying papers for printing of lottery tickets at the premises of the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs were to carry out the printing work and deliver them within the time stipulated as per print order, delivery was to be given at the printing press and printing was to be done under the supervision of an official of the defendant. During the contract period, the defendant issued print orders to the ...

P.L. Lamba (Huf) Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)388

ORDERM.V. Nayar, A.M.:The present appeal has been filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18-11-2002.2. Grounds No. 1 to 4 are against validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act ('the Act'), which reads as under :'l. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) XXVI, New Delhi, has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The proceedings initiated and the assessment completed both are misconceived and are thus without jurisdiction.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the preconditions envisaged under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, for initiating the proceedings, since were not absent, the initiation of proceedings was without jurisdiction and as such, the assessment framed was to be quashed.3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also overlooked that in the instant case, as no notice under...

Dr. (Mrs.) Poonam Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Dr. (Mrs.) Poonam Verma and two others have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complainants, in the present complaint, are claiming relief on the basis of their registration for Category-III flats under the 5th Self Financing Scheme, floated by the opposite party at the relevant time. It is alleged that the complainants got themselves registered on 11.8.1982 under the above said Scheme for the allotment of a flat after paying the requisite registration fee. It is further alleged that in the month of March, 1994, the O.P. of its own allotted a Category-III flat to each of the complainants in Kondli Garoli for Rs. 6,68,391.25 p. for each flat. The above offer, allotting the flats in the above area, was declined by the complainants. The O.P. thereafter closed that Scheme and refused to consider/include the names of the complainants in other Self Financing Scheme floated...