Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Through Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Chandgi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT740; 2004(74)DRJ135

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This judgment will dispose of number of appeals preferred by the Union of India pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Poothkalan. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 was issued on 11.12.1981 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 was issued on 11.4.1984.2. The Land Acquisition Collector made Award under Section 11 of the Act bearing No. 20/1985-86 on 11.11.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12,100/-, Rs12,000/- and Rs. 6000/- per bigha for the land in category A. B and C respectively in Village Poothkalan.3. The respondents dissatisfied with the said compensation preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The respondents in support of their claim for enhancement placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court in RFA No. 387 of 1991 titled as Ramphool and Another vs. Union of India . On the basis of this judgment, the learned Add...

Kamlesh Kumari Uppal Vs. Dept. of Customs and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ446; 2004(95)ECC27; 2004(173)ELT121(Del)

R.S.Sodhi, J.1. CRL.M.A.3340/2004:Allowed subject to just exceptions.Application stands disposed of. 2. CRL.REV.P.222/2004 & CRL.M.A.597/2004: This petition is directed against the order dated 6.04.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl.A.No.50/2002, which appeal arose from the order of conviction dated 7.07.2001 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan 2. Crl.Rev.P.222/2004 Magistrate, whereby the accused has been convicted under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of fine to further undergo one month S.I. under Section 132 of the Customs Act. She was also sentenced to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of fine to further undergo two months S.I. under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Counsel for the petitioner does not assail the judgment of the Additional Session Judge dated 6.04.2004 on merits . He,...

Delhi Safe Deposits Co. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN417(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.For assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for adjudication :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assets recovered by virtue of the decree of the High Court dated 29-6-1967 was in satisfaction of the loan of Rs. 5,00,000 inclusive of interest allegedly due to the assessed from the partnership and it became a part of the stock-in-trade of the assessed 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to set off the liabilities of partnership in the computation of the capital gain and if so, to what extent ?'2. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it does not arise and, thereforee, we are not required to examine it and is returned unanswered.3. The facts relevant to decide the aforesaid questions are as under.4. The assessed-Delhi Safe Deposits Company Ltd. entered into an agreement of partnership with John Elliot on 15-2-1964. A copy of the ...

Cce Vs. Winsome Yarns Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC428

1. In this appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the availability of benefit of. Notification No.1/95-CE dated 4.1.1995, as amended, vide Notification No. 31 /98-CE dated 15.9.1998 to the respondents.2. The learned SDR has contended that the benefit of the above-said notification after amendment could not be allowed to the respondents, although they as 100% EOU procured HSD/FO, on the basis of CT-3 certificate issued by the Superintendent, EOU Range, as the approval of the Commissioner of Customers on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner was required to be taken by them before procuring the same. Since the respondents did not take such an approval, they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,52,966 on the HSD/FO procured by them during the period 15.9.1998 to 30.11.1998 and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. The learned counsel, on the other ha...

Sun Dye-chem Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC491

1. M/s. Sun Dye-Chem have filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 116/03 dated 19.6.2003, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty against them.2. Shri Manjeet Singh Gupta, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants, a SSI Unit manufacture food colours; that they filed a classification list effective from 1.4.93 claiming the benefit of small scale exemption notification, being unaware of the fact that the concessional rate of duty was not applicable to them in view of the new criteria mentioned in the Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93; that under this Notification, the benefit of the notification was applicable to SSI units differently as under: "(i) to undertakings registered with the Director of Industries in any state or the Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industries) as a small scale industry, and (ii) to a factory other than a factory which is specified in (i) above; that the appellants, unaware of the imp...

Banaskantha Dist. Cp. Milk Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(114)LC566Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Banaskantha Distt.Coop. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. is whether Skimmed Milk Powder produced by them is classifiable under Sub-heading No. 0401.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Sub-heading No. 0401.13 as confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned Order.2. We heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate for the Appellants, and Shri P.M. Rao, learned D.R. for the Revenue. The learned Advocate fairly mentioned that the issue involved in this appeal is same to the issue involved in appeal No. E/2793/2003-NBC filed by M/s. Mehsana Distt. Coop. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. The Appellate Trbunal in the said appeal has held vide Final Order No. A/118/04-NBC dated 10.2.2004 that "Skimmed milk powder manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under Sub-heading 0401.13 of the Central Excise Tariff." Following the decision in the said appeal we reject the present appeal....

M.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in original No. 18/2000 dated 27.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise., Hyderabad.Duty demand of over Rs 63 lakhs alongwith interest, and imposition of penalty has been made in the impugned order.3. The submission on limitation is that the show cause notice has been issued on 15.12.98 for the period December 95 to February 97, by making recourse to proviso to Section 11A. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that invoking of proviso was not at all justified in the facts of the present case. It is his submission that the dispute relates to payment of duty on goods transferred from one factory of the appellant to other factories for captive consumption. At the time of issue of show cause notice, assessment for the period 1996-97 and 1997-98 was being made on provisional basis. The leaned Counsel has submitted that until the provisional assessment is finalized, occasion for issue of a show cause notice for recovery of s...

Shivaya Laminations (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT406TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Shivaya Laminations (P) Ltd., is whether laminated sheets, having designs of carom, ludo, chess, etc. are liable to excise duty.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture decorative laminated sheets, industrial laminates, laminated particle board and sport goods; that the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 17-10-2000; that the officers seized laminated sheets of design 'carom' on the ground that such sheets cannot be treated as sport goods; that the show cause notice dated 31-1-2001, issued in respect of seized goods, has been dropped by the Deputy Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 73/02 dated 12-7-2002; that another show cause notice dated 9-10-2002 was issued to them demanding duty on the laminated sheets cleared by them during the period from 18-3-99 to 30-9-2000 without payment of duty on the ground that the laminated sheets, having printed design of carom, chess, ...

Cce Vs. Malwa Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC622

1. In these two appeals, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether Cenvat Credit can be used for payment of Additional Excise duty.2. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned SDR, alongwith Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents,. Malwa Industries Ltd., manufacture cotton yarn and cotton denim fabrics, which are chargeable to duty of excise under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and Additional Duty of Excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957; that the respondents are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit; that the respondents had utilised Cenvat Credit for payment of Additional Excise duty, that the Cenvat Credit could be used only for payment of Basic Excise Duty and Special Excise Duty; that the Commissioner, under both the impugned orders, has held that the Cenvat Credit may be utilised for payment of any duty of excise, which is not correct; that Rule 57AB(1)(b) provides that Cenvat Credit can be used for payment...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanshi Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC527; 2006ACJ492; 110(2004)DLT130; 2004(73)DRJ370; (2006)142PLR63

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. This case brings into light the twin tragedies suffered by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The first tragedy was the murder of their son, the driver of a truck, on 28th January 1993; the second tragedy is the gross delay that has occurred in settling their claim for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act). Nothing can be done to mitigate the first, but surely some thought needs to be given to speed up the disposal of cases involving compensation for death.2. The Appellant, an insurance company, seeks to find fault with an order dated 15th May 2001 passed by the Commissioner under the Act awarding compensation to the parents of the deceased, Sohan Lal Verma. 3. Sohan Lal was working as a driver with M/s Manoj Roadlines. As a part of his duties, he was taking a truck from Delhi to Hyderabad Along with a second driver Jeet Singh. It appears that somewhere in Rajasthan, he was murdered. The truck was missing for a few days...