Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

R.C.L. Pathak Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by cryptic, laconic and unreasoned order dated 21.6.2002 passed by District Forum that the grievance of the appellant for refund of the payments, he had made to the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) cannot be adjudicated because it involves various issues of detailed examination of witnesses which is not possible under the summary proceedings. We are afraid the observations made by the District Forum are baseless as the grievance of the appellant was of such a nature which could have been determined or decided on the basis of affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, if any. He had only sought for the refund of the payments, he made for the period during which his water connection remained disconnected. Only those matters are determinable by the Civil Court which involve lengthy process of examination and cross-examination of the witnesses in order to sift truth from the falsehood by way of full dress trial a...

Cce Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC507

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand against the respondents by reversing the Order-in-Original.2. Ld. SDR Shri Vikas Kumar, at the very outset, had contended that the appeal filed by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-original was time barred. The Order-in-Original was passed on 31.8.2001 and copy of the same was delivered by hand to the respondents vide letter dated 10.12.2002, which was received by them on 11.12.2000 whereas the appeal was filed by them after the expiry of 90 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) according to the Ld. SDR has not gone into the question of limitation which was required to be decided before going to the merits of the Order-in-Original. Therefore, the matter should be sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) after setting aside the impugned Order, for fresh decision.3. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate, Shri B. L. Narasimh...

Anand Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT425TriDel

1. All these appeals relate to a common dispute as to whether the various processing houses which are before us in appeal had paid duty correctly and fully in respect of grey fabrics processed by them. The period of demand is from 1997 to 2002. The demand has been raised by taking resort to proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and allegation has been made in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant-processors had suppressed facts relating to actual value of the processed fabrics which were cleared by them. In these circumstances, we heard all these appeals together and are disposing them of under this common order.2. The appellants received grey fabrics from various parties who entrusted the processing of those fabrics with the appellant-processors. The appellants carried out the processing, collected processing charges and returned the processed fabrics to the senders. Even though, the processing is broadly in the category of bleaching, dyeing and printing, there are diff...

Ram Avtar Goel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT63

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. By an order made by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, the appellant's appeal was dismissed. Before us it is prayed that the matter involves substantial questions of law in so far as the jurisdiction is concerned. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the penalty could not have been imposed.2. The Tribunal, which is the final fact-finding authority, on appreciation of evidence, considering the contentions raised by the appellant in para 7, arrived at a conclusion in para 8 about the modus operandi adopted by the appellant and co-noticees in respect of the gold smuggled into India which was duly corroborated by the statement of other persons. It is found by the Tribunal that the appellant was actively involved in the smuggling of gold. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered all the submissions. In such a situation, the appellant ought to have moved the Tribunal to point out that he h...

Khalid @ AminuddIn @ Pahalwan Vs. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT670; 2005(79)DRJ159

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is against an order of externment dated 20.1.2003 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Distt., Delhi by which the petitioner was directed to remove himself beyond the local limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of two years and the orders passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 26.2.2003 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the externment order. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that a notice under Section 50 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' only) dated 4.12.2001 was issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police to the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 47 of the Act may not be initiated against him and why he should not be externed from the local limits of Delhi for a period of two years. The notice was pr...

Gokaldas Images Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(193)ELT264(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are garment exporters and seek to raise common questions of law. The petitioners are impugning the authority of respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short 'AEPC') to levy penalty for nonutilisation of the quota allotted to respective petitioners. The petitioners also seek to challenge the basis for calculation of the extent of utilization of the export entitlement. 2. The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') came into force on 19-6-1992. The object was to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade and inter alias augmenting exports. Section 5 of the said Act provides for the Central Government to formulate and announce the Export and Import Policy from time to time and to amend that Policy. Section 11 stipulates that no exports can be made except in accordance with provisions of the said Act, Rules and Orders made there under as also the Export and Import P...

Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas394(Delhi); 2005(79)DRJ595; [2005]62SCL231(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. This petition has been filed aggrieved by, the order passed by the AAIFR dated 31st December, 2001. The petitioner company had filed a second reference on the basis of audited accounts for the year ending 31st March, 2000 which was registered with BIFR at Seriall number 194/2001 dated 24th May, 2001. The said reference was dismissed in liming vide order dated 27th August, 2001. Aggrieved by said order an appeal was filed by the petitioner before AAFIR which was also dismissed by order dated 31st December, 2001 which is impugned in this writ petition.2. Prior to the said reference, another reference was filed by the petitioner company on the basis of the accounts up to 30th September, 1996. The BIFR on the said reference had declared the company sick, vide orders passed on 23rd June, 2000. Respondent No. 2/State Bank of India and respondent No. 3/Punjab National Bank filed an appeal before the AAIFR and AAIFR on 17th April, 2001 set aside the order of the BIFR. Aggri...

Keti Construction (i) Ltd. Vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR230(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the objection of the appellant under Section 34 of the Act. Mr. Markanda, learned counsel for the appellant' has contended that the appellant has been awarded four independent contracts for their various projects at Petro Chemical Complex Dibiyapur, District Etawah (UP) which are as follows :'(A) Work order No. CE/AUR/Ph-II Extn. B. Works/97A/95, dated 26.05.1995 : Balance work of construction of C-6 and D-2 Houses at GAIL Vihar Township, Dibiyapur ;(B) Work order No. CE/115/Auriaya/GAIL/GAIL Vihar Road Work 95, dated 10.02.1995 : Construction of premix bitumen carpeting and repairs of roads in GAIL Vihar Colony and Compressor Station;(C) Work order No. CE/137/Auriaya/Ext/SER/95, dated 01.11.1995 : Construction of external sewerage line at UPPC Nagar, Dibiyapur; and(D) Work order No. CE/136/Auriaya/Housing/95, dated 28.09.1995 : Construction of residential quarters Type A-...

N.P.L. Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142STC601(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Rule D.B. At the request of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal straight away. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter dated October 14, 2003, annexure P3 to the petition.2. Under the provisions contained in the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975, there is a provision for nomination of a head office in case of a dealer having more than one place of business. Reading the rule it is very clear that if a person has more than one place of business in Delhi, then it is open to him to nominate one of them as the head office and such nomination is for the purpose of these rules only. On a perusal of Sub-Rule (1) to Rule 51 it is very clear that the assessed shall nominate one of such branches as the head office for the purpose of these rules. Sub-rule (4) is also clear that all the applications/returns or statements prescribed under the Act or these rules, shall be submitted in resp...

Gokaldas Images Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(99)ECC523

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are garment exporters and seek to raise common questions of law. The petitioners are impugning the authority of respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council (for short,' AEPC) to levy penalty for non-utilisation of the quota allotted to respective petitioners. The petitioners also seek to challenge the basis for calculation of the extent of utilization of the export entitlement. 2. The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') came into force on 19.06.1992. The object was to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade and inter alias augmenting exports. Section 5 of the said Act provides for the Central Government to formulate and announce the Export and Import Policy from time to time and to amend that Policy. Section 11 stipulates that no exports can be made except in accordance with provisions of the said Act, Rules and Orders made there under as also the Export and Import...