Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Mamta International Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, M ...

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

D.P. Sharma, Chairperson. - This Appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No.ADJ/442/AD(PKB)/2002, dated 20-1-2003, whereby the Appellant has been held guilty for contravening the provisions of section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for which a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs has been imposed on the Appellant firm. 2. Shri Vaishnav, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the necessary import has in fact been made by the Appellant as is evidenced by the documents at Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Memorandum of Appeal. Therefore, the finding that they have failed to import and thereby contravened the provisions of section 8(2) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, is unsustainable. From the letter of Union Bank of India and a copy of which is at Exhibit A and copy of invoice of M/s. Sonitex Industrial Co. Ltd., the Bill of Entry for home consumption and T.R.6 challan No.19994787 copies of which are collectively marked as Exhibi...

Vikram Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT378TriDel

1. In this appeal challenge is against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay dated 26-8-92. Under the above order the Collector directed absolute confiscation of 75 cartons of staple pins valued at Rs. 76,121 (CIF) under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Collector found that the duty sought to be evaded in this case was approximately Rs. 1,40,000. He therefore imposed a penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.Different amounts of penalty imposed on other no-ticees are not under challenge in this appeal at the instance of M/s. Vikram Overseas Pvt.Ltd. 2. Appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 2469/219, dated 21-11-90 and clearance of the goods was claimed duty free under Import Export Passbook No. 0004098, dated 21-3-90. Declaration claiming concession under Notification No. 117/1988, dated 31-3-88 duly signed by the Director of the appellant M/s. Vikram Overseas Pv...

Himla Hosiery Mnfg. Dyeing and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC815

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common Order-in-Original dated 13.12.1999 vide which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 13,78,557 with an equal amount of penalty on the company M/s Himla Hosiery Manufacturing Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd., besides ordering confiscation of goods with option to get the same redeemed on redemption fine of Rs. 20,000 and further imposed penalty on the appellant No. 2, as detailed therein.2. Appellant No. 1 being a company of which appellant No. 2 is a Managing Director. The company was engaged in carrying out the process of embroidery on the base fabrics and also availing facility of compound levy for discharging the duty liability. They had been filing applications for availing special procedure in terms of Rule 96 GH from time to time. On 29.7.98, Officers of the Preventive staff of the Central Excise paid a surprise visit to the embroidery unit of the company and at that tim...

Smart Rubber Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT104TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 20-3-2003 vide which the appeal had been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) having been not filed by the appellant-firm, but by the third person to whom neither show cause notice was issued or personal penalty was imposed in the order-in-original by the adjudicating authority.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the appeal was filed by Shri Ajay Arora who was the Managing Partner of the appellant-firm and as such the same could not be dismissed. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that show cause notice was issued to the firm. M/s.Smart Rubber Industries (Regd.) wherein confiscation of unaccounted goods found in the factory at the time of visit of the Central Excise officers on 6-4-92 and imposition of penalty under Rules 173Q and 226, was proposed....

B.G. Dhatu Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC182

1. M/s. B.C. Dhatu Udyog Ltd. has filed this appeal against the confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty in respect of excisable goods stolen from their factory premises and the penalty imposed on them.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Brass sheet/Circle/foils, etc.; that on the midnight of 7/8-1-2001 a theft occurred in their factory in respect of which a FIR was lodged with the police and the Range office on 8-1-2001; that they had requested the Commissioner for remission of duty in respect of goods stolen from the factory under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Additional Commissioner had intimated them that the Commissioner had rejected their request for remission of the duty; that the Additional Commissioner under the Order-in-Original No.28/2002, dated 29-5-2002 confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 4,16,023/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh holding that theft cannot be considered as an unavoidable accident f...

Kenmore Vikas (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT289TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Kenmore Vikas (India) Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of exemption Notification Nos.9/99-CE., dated 28-2-1999 and 9/2000-CE., dated 1-2-2000 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by them.2. Shri S. Venkatarama Iyer, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Receiver Driers, components of car air-conditioner, and avail of small scale exemption; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has held that they are not eligible to small scale exemption as their goods bear the brand names of foreign company. The learned Advocate further, submitted that the goods bear the brand name "KMP"; that KMP is the brand name of the foreign supplier of technical know-how with whom they had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and Trade Mark Royalty Agreement; that as per the Trade Mark Royalty Agreement, they had obtained exclusive rights for using the trade mark in India; that the impugned goods are components of...

Vikram Detergents Private Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC512

1. The issue raised is whether the price of HDPE bags in which detergent is packed and sent is includible in the assessable value of detergents. The remand order has directed re-consideration of the case in the light of this Tribunal's decision in the appellant's own case and other case law cited before the Apex Court.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that this Tribunal has held in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 671-673/99-A dated 21.05.99 that the cost of such packing is not to form part of the assessable value. He also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Guliag Chemicals and Plastic Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1993 (63) ELT 710 (Trib.) wherein it had been held that HDPE bags are durable and returnable containers and their cost is not to be included in the assessable value. The learned counsel also pointed out that the invoice provided for reimbursement of appropriate packing cost upon return of the HDPE bags.3. We ...

Hirday Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)46; AIR2004Delhi22; 107(2003)DLT156; 2003(71)DRJ77

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The right of a purchaser of agricultural land after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, `the said Act' ) to claim an alternative plot under the scheme of the respondents for grant of such alternative plots on large-scale acquisition of land has given rise to the present writ petition.2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. 3. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 24.10.1961 and the Award was published on 27.02.1967. During this interregnum period of time, the father of the petitioner purchased the land on 14.05.1965 vide a registered sale deed. This was so as at that time there was no prohibition in law for such purchase as came into being subsequently in view of the Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, `the Land Restriction Act' ). The physical possession of the land was taken over from the father of the petitioner ...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Seema Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC450; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)516

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Though in this case notice had been issued to the respondents and they have not been served but since the matter is fully covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court, I do not deem it necessary to issue any further notice to the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation for the death of Om Prakash who had died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 3. Appellant has challenged the award on two grounds, namely, (a) The cheque given by the insurer for insuring the vehicle had bounced and the insurance company had cancelled the policy of insurance and it could, thereforee, not be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants; and (b) The driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time did not have a valid driving license in his favor and assuming the insurance company had issued the certificate of insur...

Bar Council of Delhi Vs. Shri Adish C. Aggarwala and Bar Council of In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)597; AIR2004Delhi114; 107(2003)DLT355

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final disposal. These petitions raise identical issues. CW. No. 6188/2003 has been filed by the Bar Council of Delhi whereas CW. No. 6179/2003 has been filed by Mr. Sidharth Mridul and Mr. Sanjay Jain who are both advocates and are members of the Bar Council of Delhi. These petitions are concerned with the on-going Bar Council of Delhi elections which have been brought to a sudden halt by the impugned order dated 20.9.2003, passed by Mr. Adish C. Aggarwala ( respondent No. 1 in CWP 6188/2003) purporting to be the Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of India (respondent No. 2 in CWP 6188/2003) in purported exercise of powers under Section 48-B of the Advocates' Act, 1961. 2. The elections were scheduled to be held on two dates i.e. 29.9.2003 and 30.9.2003 as per the directions of the Division Bench on 4.9.2003 in LPA 610/2003. The directions that were given are as under:' Accordingly, we dispose ...