Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Shri Krishan Kaushik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi276; 117(2005)DLT197; 2005(80)DRJ57

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, a teacher by profession, by this writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents namely Director General, Post and Telegraphs Department, New Delhi and the Assistant Superintendent, Post Office Sonepat, Sub Division Sonepat (Haryana), to refund the amount of Rs. 4,000/- deposited with the Sub Post Office in Village Sasana, Tehsil & District Sonepat (Haryana), together with interest @ 12% p.a. 2. Notice to show cause had been issued on 16th October, 1990 Upon perusal of the record summoned from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonepat, Haryana, rule was issued on 29.1.1992. Counter affidavit as well as rejoinder have since been filed.3. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.4. Petitioner had opened an account in the Post Office, Village Sasana, Sonepat, Haryana. Petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000/- in cash on 25.8.1983 in his account No. 351047. It is stated that one Shri Satya Nar...

Nirmal Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT211; 2005(80)DRJ89; 2005(99)ECC504; 2005(192)ELT108(Del)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner M/s Nirmal Exports seek a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside Order No. 12013/3/94-ADJ/AC dated nil passed by Shri Ishwar Singh, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Appellate Committee Cell, purportedly as the Appellate Authority. 2. By the impugned order, the appeal of the petitioner against the adjudication order dated 21st October, 1992 passed by Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was dismissed. By the said order, petitioner who claims to have imported brass scrap under OGL had sold the same to M/s Himachal Arts on a high sea sale. The allegation against M/s Himachal Arts, was contravention of Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Impex Act, 1947 and clause 8 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. M/s Himachal Arts were holding Duty Free Advance license and are stated to have failed to fulfill their export obligation and mis utilized the imported goods. By the adjudication order, petitioner were also held ...

Alberto Culver Company Vs. Voi Fashion Stores and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(30)PTC269(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiff prays for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietors, partners, directors etc. from manufacturing, using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying and advertising the goods manufactured by them including fashion apparels, accessories and allied/cognate goods under the trade mark Voi or any other trade name or trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark and label V05 and VO5 Along with the letters ALBERTO, VO or from doing any other acts amounting to or likely to infringe plaintiffs registered Trade Mark ALBERTO V05 or passing off and violating the plaintiffs rights in the plaintiffs trade mark and label.2. The plaintiff has now filed the present application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of plaint. The proposed amendment is limited to the deletion of 11 lines of para 3 of the plaint which read as under:-'In the year 1955 the plaintiff company honestly, ...

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Ambica Prasad

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 3.8.2000, passed by the District Forum, the appellant Bank has been directed to credit a sum of Rs. 83,200/- in the name of the respondent or pay the sum in cash against receipt with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the cheque i.e., 12.6.1995 till the date of payment on account of deficiency in service inasmuch as that the respondent who had gone to Rumah Riyadh for livelihood deposited a Bankers cheque for Rs. 83,2000/- with the appellant Bank after returning from Rumah Riyadh against counter slip dated 12.6.1995 but the same was not credited in his account. No satisfactory reply was given by the appellant whenever the respondent went to the appellant for making enquiries about it. So much so, even a legal notice dated 14.5.1996 served upon the appellant did not cut ice. 2. The perusal of the impugned order shows that no worthwhile explanation or defence was offered by the appellant as neither was the factum of receiv...

Dsm Anti Infectives India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC57

1. The appellants were denied modvat credit of differential duty subsequently paid by the manufacturer of the inputs on the ground of having availed the said credit beyond six months from the date of the issue of certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Joy Kumar, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have purchased inputs from M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Company Ltd., Chandigarh. M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., Baroda removed 631.200 BU of potassium Pencillin G on payment of appropriate excise duty to their depot at Chandigarh under invoice No. 85 dated 12.3.1998 and another quantity of potassium crystal weighing 4769.600 Bus was cleared under invoice No. 21560 dated 4.3.1998 to their depot at Chandigarh. Appellants had purchased these goods from Chandigarh deposit of M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. under invoice No. 86 dated 12.3.1998. M/s. Alembic Chemicals Works Co.Ltd., Baroda paid differential duty and obtaine...

Dcm Benetton India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC573

1. The issue involved in all these appeals filed by M/s DCM Benetton India Ltd. is whether the assessable value of the imported goods for the purpose of levying Additional Customs Duty will be the transaction value or the tariff value fixed under Section 3(2) of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri R. Parthasarathy, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture and sell ready-made garments and accessories; that they had imported various shipment of garments in bulk from Nepal; that the assessment of the imported goods has been made for the purpose of levying Additional Customs Duty on the basis of tariff value fixed by the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the Central Excise Tariff under Notification No. 20/2001-CE(NT) dated 30.4.2001; that the imported goods are required to be assessed on the basis of transaction value as the same are imported in bulk and in unpacked condition from Nepal; that Section 3(3) of the Customs Tariff Act nowhere provides that tariff value fix...

Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC429

1. In these three appeals, M/s. Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Ltd. and their two Directors, are challenging the demand of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner under the impugned Order-in-Original No. 38/2001 dated 28.9.2001.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Ltd. Appellant No. 1, manufacture galvanized M.S. Pipes and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods Under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Central Excise Officers visited their premises on 9.9.1998 and found (i) finished goods valued at Rs. 13,80,703 in excess of the recorded balance in RG I Register; and (ii) shortage of raw-material involving duty Rs. 91,119; that after recording the statements of Directors and other employees of the Appellant Company, a show cause notice dated 8.3.1999 was issued for demanding Central Excise duty Rs. 55,37,403 on the goods cleared by them clandestinely, for confiscating of se...

Kaks and Bills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC9

2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the appellant made import of tyre, tubes and flaps from China and declared the value of US $ 29.5 per set. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice for enhancement of the value of the goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and enhanced the value of (sic, to) US $ 33.75 per set. The contention of the appellant is that there is no material on record to reject the value declared by the appellant and there is also no evidence on record to show that the appellant paid over and above transaction value. The contention is that the adjudicating authority held that the goods imported by the appellant are not similar goods, which were imported by other importers and despite this relied upon such imports for enhancing the value of the imported goods, after giving the deduction of 25% in the value. The contention is that...

Sh. S.K. Mutreja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2004)DLT66; 2005(81)DRJ294; 2006(1)SLJ101(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks, inter alia, the quashing of the appointment letter dated 22nd September, 2004 passed by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 5 appointing the latter as Director (Operations) in Goa Shipyard Ltd. (respondent No. 4 herein). Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post being the most meritorious candidate adjudged by the Public Enterprises Selection Board.2. Notice to show cause was issued in the case on 29th September, 2004 It was directed that appointment would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Records of the proceedings of Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) were directed to be produced. An affidavit has been filed by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training averring that disclosure of records and documents were detrimental to public interest. However, it is averred th...

Exim Concept Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT288; 2005(80)DRJ32; 2005(99)ECC477; 2005(192)ELT157(Del)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 2 cancelling Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (in short `DFRC') license No. -510071078 and 0510071176. Petitioner is stated to have purchased these DFRC licenses from M/s Alpha Overseas and M/s Gunja Impex in the month of November, 2002, for consideration. Petitioner submits that these licenses have been cancelled by respondent No. 2, without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner also submits that licenses could not have been cancelled as petitioner was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The licenses on the face of it carried the legend 'Transferable'. Petitioner thus bonafide purchased these licenses from the above two concerns and was thereforee entitled to use them for import.3. Notice to show cause had been issued. Counter-affidavit has been filed on record. It transpires that origina...