Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Creations and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(119)LC282(Delhi)

ORDERB.C. Patel, C.J.1. In the instant case how the respondent Union of India is acting against the interest of revenue is indicated by the inaction on the part of the Union of India in not moving the Court earlier and by non filing of the reply even till today.2. This petition was filed in the year 1995 as a demand was raised on the petitioners to the extent of Rs. 1,35,788.60 by an order dated 29.6.1989. The demand notice was served for the first time on the petitioner in the year 1995. The Division Bench while issuing notice observed 'It is stated that the petitioner was unaware of any such order and for the first time he came to know when the demand was sought to be enforced as arrears of land revenue by the District Collector Office. It is stated that under Section 128 of the Customs Act appeal would not be maintainable in as much as there will be delay of over 6 years. Notice to the respondents for 8.11.1995 to show cause as to why Rule Nisi be not issued.' On giving bank guarant...

Venus Optics Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT404TriDel

2. The appellant made import of Velcro Tape and filed Bill of Entry.The value declared by the appellant is not accepted by the Revenue and it was enhanced on the basis of import made by M/s. Fancy Fashion. The contention of the appellant is that the M/s. Fancy Fashion made import of the goods from Taiwan whereas the import made by the appellant from China. The contention is that the goods imported by M/s. Fancy Fashions are not comparable goods as the appellant made import and filed Bill of Entry dated 21.8.2001 and M/s. Fancy Fashions imported the goods in the month of January 2001 and April 2001. The contention of the appellant is also that they made import of 4400 Kgs. whereas M/s. Fancy Fashions has made import of only 2616 Kgs.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods are comparable goods and M/s. Fancy Fashion declared the value of the goods at the higher side, therefore, the lower authorities rightly enhanced the value of the imported goods.4. We find that in this case...

Mashkoor Ahmed, Prof. of HussaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC537

1. None for the appellants. Notice for today's hearing of their COD application was sent to them on 24.11.2004. But no response has been received from them. No request for adjournment has also been received from them. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the COD application after hearing the learned SDR.2. The delay in filing the appeal is of 47 days. The application seeking COD in filing of this appeal had not been filed by the appellant. It is only signed by the Counsel and as such is liable to be rejected on this short ground alone. Apart from this, the ground disclosed by the Counsel in the application is that the relevant papers were misplaced in his office which resulted in delay of 47 days in filing the appeal. But the Counsel has not taken courage to file his affidavit along with the application. The affidavit of one Mashkoor Ahmed, Proprietor of the appellant firm, is also virtually meaningless.He has only deposed in his affidavit that the accompanying application has been dra...

Pinkline Exim P. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC521

1. Heard. The duty amount involved in the first appeal is of Rs. 5,38,52,735 with equal amount of penalty which has been confirmed against the company Appellant No. 1 in Appeal No. E/5118/04-B, whereas penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs has been imposed on the Appellant No. 2 in Appeal No. E/5119/04-B, who was Director of the company No. 1 at the relevant time. The company Appellant No. 1 is a 100% EOU. The duty amount has been confirmed against it by denying the benefit of the Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.97 in respect of DTA sales made during the period in dispute detailed in the show cause notice as well as on the ground of having bogus/non-genuine transactions by selling the goods at throwaway nominal to price the buyers who even did not exist. The learned Counsel has contended that the benefit of Notification 8/97 could not be denied even it is taken that the appellant company purchased the raw material from other 100% EOUs. He has relied upon the ratio of law laid down in Favourite I...

NaraIn Singh Vs. Government of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT433

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The land of the father of the petitioner Shri Balbir Singh located in Badli, Delhi was acquired vide Award dated 10.11.1981 and, thus, he made an application dated 20.5.1983 for allotment of an alternative plot under the scheme of the respondents for allotment of such plots on large-scale acquisition of land. The case of Shri Balbir Singh was considered favorably and the recommendation was made by the concerned Department on 31.7.1985 for an alternative plot of 400 sq. mtrs.2. Shri Balbir Singh also owned some land in Toganpur, Delhi which was also acquired and it is alleged that Shri Balbir Singh also made an application on 16.11.1987 for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the said land, even though in terms of the proforma to be filled, the concerned person had to disclose whether prior allotment of any plot had been made. This was so since a person could not be allotted more than one plot.3. An offer of allotment was made by DDA on 20.4.1990 to Shri...

Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs. Airport Authority of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi220; II(2005)BC149; 2005(1)CTLJ49(Del); 116(2005)DLT91; 2005(79)DRJ447

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent of parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing.2. In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the cancellation of a tender process initiated by the first respondent Airports Authority of India (hereafter ''AAI'') as well as its subsequent decision to award the contract for services of recovery cranes to remove vehicles from the ''No Parking Area'' to the second respondent. 3. The AAI had, through an advertisement dated 16th May 2003, called for tenders for the purposes of providing services for recovery cranes for towing of light vehicles parked in the ''No Parking Zone'' of AAI, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delh [''the airport'']. Bidders were required to quote rates chargeable by them. This meant that the bidders were to indicate the rates payable on the basis of deployment of certain number of cranes, six shifts each day. It is not in dispute that as per the conditions,...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Archana Steels

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT430; 2005(80)DRJ759

ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Heard.2. On the dispute being referred to the Arbitrator, UOI/claimant filed a claim for a sum of Rs. 17,54,000/-. As against this, objector/contractor filed counter claims of Rs. 6,40,000/-. Vide award dated 1.9.1993, learned Arbitrator awarded an amount Rs. 5,60,000/- in favor of the UOI without indicating the reasons in the award. It appears that the counter-claim of respondent was not at all considered. Learned Counsel for the objector has pointed out that learned Arbitrator framed some issues on 18.2.1991 and issue No. (e) specifically framed covering the counter claims. Issue No. (e) shall read as under:(e) Whether the respondents are entitled to loss or profit as claimed by them.'A perusal of the award shows that not a word has been said therein about the counter claims of the respondent. I heard Counsel for the objector has cited case law to the effect that if the Arbitrator does not consider the counter claims of the respondent award is to be set aside ...

Soni and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT135; 2005(79)DRJ654; (2005)140PLR29

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 376 and Section 120-B IPC. Appellants Rajan, Gomti, Soni and Udal suffered a conviction under Section 376 IPC. appellant Kalyan suffered a conviction under Section 366 IPC, vide judgment dated 3.12.2001 in Sessions Case No. 104/98.2. Vide order dated 4.12.2001, Rajan, Soni, Gomti and Udal were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for 3 months. Kalyan was imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default to undergo S.I. for 3 months. 3. In a nutshell, case of the prosecution against the accused was that prosecutrix `R' was abandoned by her husband. Kalyan met her during Navratras in 1997 and told her that her husband had been admitted in a hospital at Mathura. She, Along with her two children accompanied Kalyan, who took her to Patrawal, District ...

Dr. Jiwan Lal Marken Vs. Rajiv Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Short question arising in the appeal directed against the impugned order dated 15.3.1996 passed by the District Forum is whether a sum of Rs. 22,700/- towards excise duty was refunded to the respondent or not as this amount was charged by the respondent from the appellant towards the price of Ambassador Delux Diesel car. 2. The car in question was booked by the appellant on 26.2.1993 by paying full price. Respondent assured the delivery of the car within two days. However, the car was delivered only on 5.3.1993 and by that time the price of the car had come down by Rs. 22,700/- on account of reduction in the excise duty. 3. The price of the vehicle is applicable on the date of delivery. In the instant case, the excise duty of the aforesaid amount was reduced by the Government, the appellant was entitled for refund of the said amount, by not refunding the said amount and claiming the concession from the Government the respondent has indulged in unfair trade pr...

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Anita Malik

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a finance company. The respondent got one motor-cycle financed from the appellant by paying Rs. 2,200/- in cash as initial deposit and 30 advance cheques of Rs. 1,352/- each towards instalments. All the cheques were realised by the appellant without any delay and default. Cheque for September 2003 could not be presented for realisation by the appellant due to some unavoidable circumstances. For this default the appellant took law into its hands and removed the motor-cycle from the residence of the respondent. For this act vide impugned order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the District Forum the appellant has been directed to pay the entire amount realised from the respondent with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint and also pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental tension, agony and harassment suffered at the hands of the appellant. 2. It appears that the appellant invoked the clause of agreement authorising him to take poss...