Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

R.V. Saxena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi96; II(2006)BC455; [2006]133CompCas100(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT267; (2006)142PLR67

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 23.9.2005 and praying for declaring the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter refer to as the Act) which requires pre-deposit for entertainment of the appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act as ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The petitioner is a retired Government servant. Respondent No. 3 M/s Graffiti Infotech Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of dealing in laptop computers etc. Presently, it is being managed by respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 3 availed certain credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs by way of hypothecation of stocks etc. Immediately after availing the loan from res...

New Venus Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. R.K.K. Printers a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT624

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The impugned award was made on 28.10.1994. The main objection preferred against the award is that the learned Arbitrator did not at all discuss claim No.1 in the award nor has any finding been recorded therein with regard to claim No.1. The other objection that has been raised by the learned counsel for the Objector is that in so far as claim No.7 is concerned, which pertains to the forfeiture of the security deposit amount of Rs. 2 lacs, while the learned arbitrator has found the contractor/respondent liable for the delay and hence holding that the invocation of the forfeiture clause was justified, the said Arbitrator has only permitted forfeiture of Rs. 1 lac as against the entire security deposit of Rs. 2 lacs. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, also stated that another issue which needs to be determined by this court is with regard to the amount of interest that is payable by the objector to the respondent. Before I consider these questio...

Simertex Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

R.N. Poddar, Member. - These appeals have been directed against the adjudication order No. SDE(RS)/IV/38-39/86 dated 17-7-1986 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a total penalty of Rs. 5,50,000 on M/s. Simertex, appellant in appeal No. 493/86 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-firm) for contravention of provision of section 18(2) of FERA, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), a penalty of Rs. 1,10,000 on Shri T.B.S. Ahluwalia (appellant in appeal No. 494/86), a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on Shri Daljit Singh Ahluwalia (appellant in appeal No. 495/86) and a penalty of Rs. 35,000 imposed on Shri Harinder Singh (appellant in appeal No. 496/86) for contravention of section 18(2), read with section 68(1) of the Act. 2-3. The above appeal came up for hearing on 20-9-2005. Appellants were neither present nor represented in spite of the service of notice of hearing on them by affixation. Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA appeared on behalf of the respondent and filed...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Suraj Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The short point involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000, which provides concessional rate of duty to crude palm oil imported for use in the manufacture of vanaspati. The original adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of the notification to the shortages detected by the Revenue on the ground that such short receipt oil has not been actually used in the manufacture of vanaspati.Commissioner (Appeals) however extended the benefit on the ground that the shortages are only to the tune of 72% and was in respect of part of the quantity which was short received by the respondent and another part of the shortages was on account of evaporation and loss enroute from port to factory.2. After hearing both the sides we find that the issue stand decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd. v.CCE, Ghaziabad reported as 2004 (174) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). Under similar set ...

Seven Seas Carpet Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the same are directed against the impugned order passed by Commissioner.The challenge in the appeal is only to penalty of Rs. 10 lakh imposed upon M/s. Riya India as also on M/s. Seven Seas Carpets on the findings of the overvaluation of exported goods. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed upon the third appellant Shri Moti Chandra who is Prop, of the above appellants.2. After hearing both sides we find that the said two appellants during the course of investigation, have accepted the charge of overvaluation of the goods and misdeclaration of the quantum of the same. The said goods were being exported under DEPB credit scheme and the DEPB benefit in respect of the said goods was to the extent of Rs. 1.44 lakhs approx. Shri Moti Chandra in his statement recorded before the officers during the course of investigation, also admitted that he will not claim DEPB benefit of around Rs. 9 lakhs in resp...

Goyal Mg Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these two appeals, the appellants have challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying them the Modvat credit on Refrigeration Compressor. Zero Grade Nitrogen Gas & Calibration Gas and Chlorofloro Carbon Refrigerant gas.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Compressed Oxygen, Liquid Oxygen and Nitrogen Gas falling under Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff.In Appeal No. E/406/04, the appellants had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 45,418/- on Zero Grade Nitrogen Gas, Calibration Gas armour cellular/sheet and on Kirloskar Pneumatic Refrigeration Compressor HCG falling under sub-heading 8414.30. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denial of the credit. On adjudication, Dy. Commissioner denied the entire credit to the appellants. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the order of original authority was upheld.In Appeal No. E/406/04, the appellants have taken MODVAT Credit of Rs. 68,919/- on Chlorofloro Carbon Refrigerant Gas falling Under sub-hea...

Dhiman Industries Steel Rolling Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After hearing both the sides we find that the Assistant Commissioner dropped the demand raised against the appellant by observing that the Non Alloys steel and rounds made by them from billets sent by principal manufacturer, on job work basis, though not entitled to the benefit of notification No. 214/86, already stand included in the annual capacity of production fixed by the Commissioner and duty stand discharged on the same under the provisions of Section 3A.) However, the said order of the original adjudicating authority was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), on an appeal filed by the Revenue, by observing that the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 is not available inasmuch as the billets upon whom duty has been paid under compounded levy scheme stands excluded from the applicability of the inputs. However, we find that the appellate authority has not given any finding on the issue that the said rounds, in any case, have discharged their duty liability under Section 3A a...

Cc Vs. Anant Spinning Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC103

1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bhopal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly dropped the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the respondent company.2. The respondent, M/s. Anant Spinning Mills are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, synthetic blended yarn and are a 100 % EOU.They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97 under which they were exempted from customs duty subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. They imported 16 consignments of lubricant oil without payment of duty on the basis of 19 forged certificates in the form of Annexure-A on which their Commercial Executive had made forged signatures of the Range offices. The certificate in the form of Annexure-A was required under-Circular No.14/98-Cus dated 10.3.98. They had also not executed the requisite Bond at the time of import of the goods. The offence was booked against the respondent for illegal import of the goods on forged documents with...

Mr. Sanjeev Malik, Director, Mr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC140

1. The applicants seek waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner under the impugned order.2. The present appeals arise after the earlier remand by the Tribunal and the passing of the impugned order by the Commissioner. The learned consultant appearing for the applicants, submitted that there have been two remands in the past by the Tribunal in the same matter, and that this is the third time that the applicants have approached this Tribunal. He submitted that, initially when the applicants had approached the Tribunal in 2001 against the order of the Commissioner, Interim Stay was granted on the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, which came to be modified by order dated 04.01.2001 to Rs. 1.5 laKhs having regard to the financial hardship of the applicants. The learned consultant then pointed out that, thereafter when the applicants approached the Tribunal again after the first remand and making of the order by the Commissioner, when the ...

Acqua Minerals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT851TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner dated 10-2-2005 wherein he rejected the appellants claim for settlement of the case under KVS scheme.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were manufacturing branded products "Bisleri" Mineral water.They also claimed the benefit of SSI notification. The department issued a show cause notice to the appellant for the ineligibility of the SSI exemption notification to the branded products and demanded duty and sought to impose penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty vide his order in original No.57(2201-19)97-Dy. Comm. 38/97 dated 25-11-97. The appellants preferred an appeal against the said order in original. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants vide their declaration dated 29-1-99 sought to settle the issue through Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The said declaration was scrutinized by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Calcutta-I, and...