Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Aditya Trading Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(113)LC812Tri(Delhi)

1. Heard. In the stay application, waiver of predeposit of penalty amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- has been sought by the appellants. The issue as to whether this penalty could be imposed on the appellants who are second stage purchasers of the inputs from the first stage dealer and taken the credit on the basis of manufacturers' invoice, already stands covered in their favour in their earlier own case decided by the Tribunal reported in 2003 (55) RLT 302 : 2003 (107) ECR 214 (T).Therefore, the stay application of the appellants is allowed.2. In our view, the appeal itself can be also disposed of on merits.The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the trading of caustic soda, soda flakes, soda ash, etc. They had been imposed penalty of the disputed amount under the erstwhile Rule 173Q read with Rule 13 of the CENVAT Rules on the ground that they had wrongly taken the modvat credit in contravention of Rule 57AE during the period December 2000 to August 2001. Similar sh...

Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The issue involved in this appeal, regarding the imposition of penalty on the appellants under Rule 173Q/Section 11AC on the amount collected in excess of duty, already stands decided in their own case reported in 2002(142) ELT 157. Therefore, the stay application is allowed.3. In our view the appeal itself also can be disposed of. The issue involved in this appeal is to whether penalty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC could be imposed on the appellants for having collected the amount in excess of duty from the buyer, or not. This issue already stands decided in favour of the appellants in their own earlier case reported in 2002 (142) ELT 157, wherein it has been held that no penalty under Rule 173Q or under Section 11AC, in such a situation, could be imposed as they could be directed in terms of Section 11D of the Act to deposit only the excess amount. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside so far as it relates to the imposition of penalty on the appellants. Appeal of th...

Fair Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT385TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Fair Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 as amended, is available in respect of waste in the form of bones obtained during the process of manufacturing boneless meat.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), at the relevant time, manufacture and export frozen chilled meat; that during the process of manufacture of the boneless meat, waste in the form of bones is generated when meat is separated from the bones; that the Additional Commissioner, under the Order-in-Onginal No. 10/2002, dated 1-5-2002, dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice, dated 28-2-2002 demanding duty by disallowing the exemption under Notification No. 8/97 as amended; that, however, on appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has set aside the Order-in-Original holding that after t...

Fair Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC89

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Fair Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.97 as amended, is available in respect of waste in the form of bones obtained during the process of manufacturing boneless meat.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), at the relevant time, manufacture and export frozen chilled meat; that during the process of manufacture of the boneless meat, waste in the form of bones is generated when meat is separated from the bones; that the Additional Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 10/2002 dated 1.5.2002, dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice dated 28.2.2002 demanding duty by disallowing the exemption under Notification No. 8/97 as amended; that, however, on appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has set aside the Order-in-Original holding that after the a...

A.K. Verma Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC253

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') declining the request of the appellant (who was 3rd defendant before the DRT in O.A. 45/95) to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 18.6.98.3. The contention of the appellant/3rd defendant is that he was not served with the summons/notice in the O.A. but he came to know of the proceedings in the O.A. on 15.12.99 when he went to the respondent-Bank and met an official of the Bank, who showed him the copy of the ex parte final order. The learned Counsel for the appellanl/3rd defendant contends that the appellant/3rd defendant had filed the application dated 11.1.2000 i.e., within 30 days from the date of knowledge, before the DRT to set aside the ex parte final order. The learned Counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant also contends that the appellant/ 3rd defendant has specifically pleaded in ...

Saraf Fabrics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC74

1. Notice of this appeal. Mr. P.C. Jain states that notice may be issued only to the Ist respondent-Bank since, according to him, the other respondent is a proforma party. He, therefore, requests that notice of the appeal to the other respondent be dispensed with. Ordered accordingly.2. Mr. A.P. Mukundan takes notice of the appeal on behalf of the Ist respondent-Bank and states that the reply to the appeal is already on record. Mr. P.C. Jain states that he has already filed the rejoinder.Both sides are ready to advance arguments in the appeal.3. I have the learned Counsels for both the sides and also perused the records.4. This is an appeal against the order dated 25.9.2001 by which the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed the final order to be amended by adding the following: "It has been agreed besides the above that the interest is payable, after adjustment of the amount paid by the respondents/defendants w.e.f. May, 2000 onwards towards the principal (i.e. Rs. 3.00 crores...

Shri Suresh Kumar Poddar Vs. Smt. Lajjawati and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 107(2003)DLT72

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2002 passed by the Competent Authority (Slum), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby his review petition was dismissed. The petitioner sought review of the order dated 03.03.1999 passed by the said competent authority, whereby the evidence and defense of the petitioner was struck-off in a petition (being petition no.8814/1996) filed by the respondent no.1, i.e., Smt Lajjawati under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 seeking permission to evict the petitioner from the premises in question, i.e., House No.2637, Ram Gali, Teliwara, Delhi-110006, which admittedly falls in a notified slum area.2. Notice had been issued in this writ petition as far back as on 24.04.2002. Despite service of notice, none of the respondents have chosen to remain present. In view of this position, all the statements made in the writ petition would have to be taken as correct and would have to be accepted. It ...

Kanta Rani and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC123

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants 2 and 3 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The only point urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased at the time of the accident was 36 years of age and while arriving at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 whereas in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 16.2. It is now well-settled that unless there are special reasons to deviate, the Courts and Tribunals while arriving at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased should apply the multiplier mentioned in Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. For the victims between the ages of 35 and 40 years, the Se...

Krishan Kant Aggarwal and ors. Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC274; 109(2004)DLT247

ORDER1. Against the common order dated 28th August, 2002 made by the learned Single Judge, deciding a common question in the writ petitions the present appeals are preferred.2. There was refusal on the part of the respondent-DDA to allot shops to the appellants, who were the highest bidders in the auction held by the respondent.3. It transpires that in the month of March, 2000 advertisement was issued by the respondent the copy of which is placed on record at page 29 for mega sale of shops/offices on freehold basis through tender. The last date for submitting the tender was 18th April, 2000. We have considered question of one shop out of all these appeals to decide these appeals as the case of other shops are similar.4. In LPA No. 769/2002 the shop No. 19 is the subject matter which is situated at CSC-6, Sector-7, Rohini, Phase-I, Delhi-110085. The shop was at ground floor admeasuring 15 sq. meters of area. The reserved price was Rs. 1,47,500/-. The appellant and some other bidders sub...

Model School for Mentally Deficient Child Vs. Mukh Ram Prasad Maurya a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ714; [2004(101)FLR300]; 2004(3)SLJ408(Delhi)

ORDERDue to Dusshera holidays commencing from 30th September, 1984, this Institution does not require the services of Mr. Mukh Ram. thereforee, Mr. Mukh Ram (Daily Wage employee) is relieved from the post of chowkidar w.e.f. 2.10.84.sd/-(LEENA MAZUMDAR) PRINCIPAL'7. In the order of termination the reason stated is that the services of respondent No. 1 are not required due to Dussehra holidays commencing from 30th September, 1984. It is not stated that the appointment against leave vacancy came to end upon return of the original appointee Man Bahadur. Neither in the termination order nor even this writ petition it has been stated as to if when Man Bahadur returned and joined the services. Consequently, it is clear that the plea relating to leave vacancy cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence about the return of Man Bahadur. Even the appointment letter says that appointment was until further orders and does not disclose that the appointment was for a fixed duration. Learned c...