Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Ex. Sub. Inspector Cisf Kewal Kumar Gogia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT595

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 22nd November, 2003 dismissing the petitioner from service under Rule 32(i) read with Rule 34 and 39(ii) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001(hereinafter referred to as `CISF Rules') read with Clause (b) of the second proviso to Clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.3. Rule 39(ii) of the CISF Rules reads as follows:-39. Special procedure in certain cases._ Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 36 to 38 (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or 4. In September, 2003 the petitioner was deployed on SPG duty in Switzerland. During the Prime Minister's visit to Zurich, an incident occasioned where an allegation was made against th...

Sunpac India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturer of laminated plastic films and other items falling under Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the facility of modvat credit. On 11.12.1997, there was a fire in the factory premises of the appellants and the finished goods, raw materials and capital goods lying in the factory were destroyed. The appellants wrote to the Superintendent of Central Excise with a copy to the concerned Assistant Commissioner informing that there was a fire in the factory and all machines, raw materials, finished goods and central excise records had been burnt to ashes. The appellants also informed the police and the fire department immediately. The central excise authorities were requested to appoint an officer to conduct a survey of the factory and ascertain the extent of damage. On 17.12.1997, the appellants filed a claim for remission of duty on the goods lost in the fire. The appellants also provided details of the ...

T.T.K.-lig Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT169TriDel

1. Facts : These appeals are listed before the Larger Bench by virtue of the order dated 2-8-2005 made by the Division Whether Additional Duty of Customs was leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the imported rubber, as on the date of importation, to the extent equal to the duty of excise levied as cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 on rubber produced/manufactured in India as on the said date? 2. It appears that the appellants had challenged the said order dated 2-8-2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court objecting to the reference being made, but as recorded in the order dated November 11, 2005 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal No. 6468/05, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after some arguments, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants was permitted to withdraw the appeals as the matter had been referred to a Larger Bench.3. The principal objection against the making of reference to the Larger Bench r...

Rane Nsk Steering Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This miscellaneous application is filed by Rane NSK Steering Systems Limited for transferring their case to Chennai Bench on the ground that they have registered office at Chennai.2. The learned Departmental Representative opposed the transfer on the ground that the manufacturing unit of the appellant is within the jurisdiction of this bench. The case in which appeal has been filed in this Bench was booked at Gurgaon. The department will have difficulty in pursuing the matter at Chennai as the records of the unit are within the jurisdiction of this bench.3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request for transfer of the case to Chennai is rejected....

Kay Bee Alum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Alum (Alumina Ferric) which is liable to Central Excise duty. The main input is Sulphuric acid and the appellant had been taking Modvat credit in respect of duty paid Sulphuric acid purchased. Under the impugned order, Modvat credit of about Rs. 1.5 lakhs has been denied in respect off purchases of Sulphuric acid during the period April 1996 to February 1997. There is also a duty demand of about Rs. 5466 - on the ground that the appellant had removed manufactured goods without payment of duty.2. The basic evidence of the Revenue is that the private record of the appellant (seized during a visit on 18.2.99) showed the entry "Acid papers adjustment up to date 445.49 MT". This is a "Monthly Abstract".Based on entry in the private record, notice was issued holding that the quantity of Sulphuric acid "adjusted" would not be eligible for Modvat credit.3. The appellant resisted the allegation, explaining that "adjustment" related to cases of Sulphuric ac...

Jantan Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT474TriDel

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The grievance of the appellant is that the consignment of PVC flooring imported from U.K.has been assessed after loading the import value. The declared value of the consignment was about Rs. Two lakhs. The consignment was assessed at the enhanced value of Rs. 6.4 lakhs.2. A perusal of the order makes it clear that the alert notice Directorate of Valuation which is the basis for the enhancement of the value, did not relate to the present import at all. The alert notice was in regard to undervalued import of PVC flooring from Taiwan, Korea and Thailand. That alert notice had no relevance to the assessment of the appellant's import from U.K. The impugned or der, of course, mentioned that the appellant had accepted the assessment of the goods and this amounted to acceptance of the enhanced assessable value. The order points out that having accepted the assessable value at the time of clearance, the appellant is not at liberty to challenge that v...

Nulon Electronics Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)698

1. The assessee has filed this appeal for the asst. yr. 2001-02 against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 15th Feb., 2005 disputing the confirmation of the order of the AO to sustain penalty of Rs., 1 lakh imposed under Section 271B of the IT Act.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is stated to have received the audit report within due date and filed the same along with the return within due date of filing of the return.The AO observed that the audit report filed by the assessee is unsigned. Accordingly, the AO issued show-cause notice as to why penalty proceedings under Section 271B not be initiated as the said audit report filed pursuant to Section 44AB of the Act is not a valid tax audit report. The AO has stated that the assessee filed a reply vide letter dt. 20th Sept., 2004 as under : There is no provision in the Act for levy of penalty due to having filed unsigned report of the chartered accountant especially when it bears his seal. It is po...

Harihar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (State)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT566; I(2006)DMC242; 2006(86)DRJ438

Manju Goel, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of one Urmila, a woman he lived with. Urmila was admitted to LNJP Hospital with 95% burns on 12.10.1994 at 4.45 a.m. She died in the wee hours of 14.10.1994. The FIR Ex.PW 1/A (bearing no.549/94 of P.S. Janakpuri) was registered on the basis of the MLC, Ex.PW6/A.2. The appellant was arrested on the basis of the statements of Som Nath, the son of Urmila, the deceased and Geeta, the sister of the deceased. The appellant was challaned and eventually convicted vide the impugned judgment.3. The conviction is based primarily on the testimony of Som Nath PW-2, Geeta PW-3 and the dying declarations made to the Dr. Rakesh Dogra PW-6 of the LNJP hospital. The presence of the accused is proved by the chappals he left behind while running away after committing the crime. The defense has tried to pick holes in the prosecution case by challenging the veracity of the MLC as the memo of brief facts prepared soon a...

Star India Private Limited Vs. Shanskardhani Cable Netword

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT299

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the interim Orders of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal dated 12.12.2005. The next hearing is scheduled for 12.1.2006. The gravamen of the Order is that the Star India Pvt. Ltd. must give direct signals to Sanskardhani Cable Network, as an interim measure, and the latter shall pay subscription on a subscriber base of 4200 and shall further deposit a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs as security. Star India Pvt. Ltd. would thereupon re-connect the signals within seventy two hours after the said security deposit is made.2. Ordinarily a Court would not lightly interfere with interim Orders and arrangements made by another competent Authority. This principle is better expressed by stating that a Court should interfere in interim arrangements only where overwhelming reasons compel it to do so. Most often an interim arrangement has been devised on the invitation or consent of the parties. If one of the parties thereafter ...

Karam Chand Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT272; 2006(86)DRJ174

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The appellants, namely, Karam Chand, Narain Singh, Bhim Singh, Narender Kumar and Lagan Singh, faced trial for being in unlawful possession of Charas in different quantities and each one of them was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 12 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default two years RI.2. The prosecution case unfolds that on 11th of December, 1993, at about 4.45 p.m. a secret information was received by Insp.J.S.Rana at N and CP Cell, Kamla Market, Delhi that four persons possessing a large quantity of Charas would be arriving in a Gypsy No. HP-2 3342 between 6.45 and 7.45 p.m. to effect supply thereof in front of Oasis Hotel in Pitam Pura, Delhi. The information was recorded in Daily Diary. Insp.J.S.Rana apprised Shri B.C.Kalra, ACP/Headquarters and CP Cell of the same. In terms of a direction by ACP B.C.Kalra, a raiding party comprising police officials was organized which proceeded to the given place and reached there at 6.10 p...