Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 20 of about 214 results (0.019 seconds)Cce Vs. Kumar Rolling Division
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC757
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty and interest under Rule 96-ZP(3)(i)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules as well as Rule 173-Q.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice to them for today's hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.3. We have gone through the file and the impugned order- We find that the respondents during the relevant period were engaged in the manufacture of Hot Re-rolling Products and were liable to pay duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act under Compound Levy Scheme.Their ACP was determined firstly provisionally by the competent authority, in respect of their two rolling mills vide orders dated 1.5.1998 and 19.8.1997. They were required to pay the duty in the beginning of each month from 1st September 1997 to 31st March 1998 or latest by 10th of each month....
Tag this Judgment!Volvo India Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC115
1. The appellants manufacture motor vehicles in their factory near Bangalore. Those motor vehicles are liable to Central Excise duty on advelorum basis. Under the impugned order, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore confirmed differential duty demand of about Rs. 7.5 crores on the appellant with regard to vehicles cleared from July 1998 to August 2002. There is also demand of differential cess, interest and penalty. The reason for the duty demand is that the appellant did not determine the assessable value of the motor vehicles correctly by including amounts collected under service contracts also in the assessable value. The present appeal challenges that order.2. The contention of the appellant is that amounts collected under the service agreement with the buyers is not a consideration for the sale of the motor vehicles or, for that matter, they are amounts paid or liable to be paid "by reason of" "or in connection with" the sale of the motor vehicles. It is being pointed out th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT379TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether duty of Central Excise is payable by M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. on the capital goods cleared by them as waste and scrap.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR and perused the records. The Respondents manufacture cement and clinker and avail of Modvat credit on the duty paid on capital goods. A show cause notice was issued to them for demanding the duty in respect of waste and scrap of the capital goods cleared by them on the ground that they had initially availed of the Modvat credit of the duty paid on such capital goods. The Asstt. Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 147/2000, dated 31-5-2000, had confirmed the duty and imposed penalty. However, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Adjudication Order on the ground that the waste and scrap was not generated during the manufacture of f...
Tag this Judgment!National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC420
1. Shri A. C. Jain. Id. Advocate pleaded that the appellants had received Methanol Synthesis Catalyst under Bill of Entry No. 12305 dated 3-1-92 and they had taken credit of Rs. 4,66,174.52 on the strength of photocopy of Bill of Entry No. 12305 dated 3-1-92. Show cause notice was issued to the applicants for recovery of this amount of credit, which was confirmed by the Asstt. Collector and their appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal under its Order No. A/825/02-NB (SM) dated 2-7-2002 observed that the applicants had produced photocopy of Bill of Entry in respect of inputs for which the credit was denied but they produced the triplicate copy before the Tribunal and hence the matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication. Ld. Advocate pleaded that since re-adjudication and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal is continuation of the old proceedings, therefore, no clearance of COD is required. He also pleaded that since in...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi132; 116(2005)DLT695
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the order dated 6th May, 1999, passed by the Commissioner, Food & Supplies, by which the allotment of KOD Depot at Tughlakabad Railway colony, has been made in favor of respondent No. 4. Petitioner had been allotted the said KOD vide order dated 21st January, 1998. Petitioner by the writ petition also seeks restoration of the said license, as was granted vide order dated 21st January, 1998.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly noted:-3. The Commissioner, Food & Supplies, vide vacancy notice dated 3rd January, 1997 had, inter alia, invited applications to run the kerosene oil depot in five areas, specified in the said notice. At S.No.1 was Tughlakabad Railway Colony and Pul Prhaladpur. This was unreserved vacancy. After consideration of these applications, Commissioner, Food & Supplies vide his order dated 21st January, 1998, found the petitioner as the eligible and most suitable ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Singh Vs. Delhi Police Public School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT516; 2005(79)DRJ688
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Mr. Ajay Singh, by this writ petition, assails the invocation of Rule 115(4) of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973, whereby he was placed under suspension by an order bearing No.DPPS/2360 dated 7.11.2003, from the date of his original termination from service w.e.f. 31.1.2002. Petitioner further assails the rejection of his representation dated 27.11.2003 against an order dated 7.11.2003, by communication dated 2.12.2003, justifying the deemed suspension from the date of original order in terms of Rule 115(4) and further holding that no statutory approval under Section 8 of the Delhi Education Act was required.2. During the course of submissions, Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has confined relief to petitioner's claim for his dues from 1.2.2002 to the date of passing of the order of suspension i.e., 7.11.2003. The submission of Mr.Sethi is that Rule 115(4) could not have been invoked and is not attracted. Hence after the origi...
Tag this Judgment!Robil Shah @ Kale and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2630; 117(2005)DLT106; 2005(79)DRJ661
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellant Sultan Singh, Jai Kumar and Rajender are brothers. Appellant Robin Shah @ Kale is the son of Sultan Singh. Appellant Deepak is the son of Rajender. All of them were charged of having committed an offence under Section 148 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. As per the charge framed against the appellants on 23.4.1998, appellants were charged of having formed an unlawful assembly with a common object, being armed with lathi and knife at about 2.30 AM on 16.3.1997 at House No. D-674, Nathupura, for purposes of rioting. Further, appellants were charged that on the said date, time and place, while forming an unlawful assembly with common object, they caused injury on the person of Jagdish (PW.3) with intention to commit his murder or with the knowledge that if death had been caused due to injury, appellants would have been guilty of committing his murder.2. At the end of the trial, vide judgment dated 27.7.1999 in Sessions Case No. 52/1998, appe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajvir and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1652; 117(2005)DLT164; 2005(79)DRJ667
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Machinery of law was put into motion when police post Wazirpur Industrial Area received a telephonic information at 10.15 P.M. on 10.4.1996 from Ct. Danvir (No. 1291/North) who was posted at Hindu Rao Hospital that one Chandreshwar S/o. Sh. Tale Singh R/o. N-18B/330 Chander Shekhar Azad Colony was admitted in a serious condition by one Rajvir Verma S/o Ram Lal, R/o Chander Shekhar Azad Colony. Report was recorded vide DD No. 26 (Ex. PW. 8/A). Pursuant thereto S.I. Kapil Parashar (PW.8), in charge of the police post, accompanied by H.C. Rohtash Singh, Ct. Narinder and Ct. Swaraj left for Hindu Rao Hospital. On reaching the hospital they found 3 persons, Nirmal (PW.2), Gorakh (PW.4) and Chandreshwar (PW.5) admitted in injured condition. SI Kapil Parashar recorded statement of Gorakh (Ex. PW. 3/A) and after making endorsement (Ex. PW. 8/B) sent the ruqqa to P.S. Ashok Vihar through Ct. Narinder for registration of FIR (Ex. PW. 3/A). [I may note that statement of Go...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand Chauhan Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT187; 2005(79)DRJ644
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants, Subhash Chand Chauhan and Kanti Kumar were working as Junior Engineer and Khalasi respectively with the DDA. In December 1988, both were posted in Rohini Project Division IX, DDA. Adesh Mittal (PW-3) had purchased shop No. S-2/5, Block B, Shopping Centre, Prashant Vihar from DDA, which block fell within the area of Division-IX. On a complaint by PW-3, CBI laid a trap. Appellants were allegedly caught accepting bribe from PW-3. Case was registered under Section 120B IPC and Section 7 as also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They were sent to trial in the Court of Special Judge, CBI which was registered as Sessions Case No. 73/93(90).2. Vide judgment dated 3.6.2002, appellants were convicted on all counts. Vide order dated 4.6.2002, sentence of R.I for 4 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, was inflicted upon the appellants for offences under Section 120B IPC, Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Shankar Mathur Vs. D.D.A. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ17
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. All petitioners claim benefit all Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and pray that DDA be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the flat, subject matter of each writ petition.2. defense of DDA is that a fraud has been played upon it. Whether the original allottee or whether the petitioners are parties to the fraud is under investigation with CBI, It is urged by DDA that since issue of fraud arisen between the parties, on the pleadings as laid, without recording evidence, relief cannot be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, DDA prays that writ petitions be dismissed.3. Case pleaded by Rajesh Kumar Shankar, writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 529/98 is that being desirous of purchasing a flat, he approached one Shri Ram Avtar Gupta who was rendering services as a property broker. Respondent No. 2, who was allotted flat No. 4-A, G.F., Pocket-C, Category-III, Kondli Gharoli, New Delhi was desirous of selling the flat which was allotted to him by...
Tag this Judgment!