Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 20 of about 296 results (0.020 seconds)Surendra Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. M.G. Attri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3768; 120(2005)DLT450
ORDER NO.1/92 Sub:- Prosecutions under Section 56 & 57 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 Revised guidelines for prosecution under Section 56 and 57 were issued under Technical Circular No. 6/87 dated 3rd June, 1987. In supersession of the same, the following revised guidelines are hereby issued:-1. Prosecution under Section 56 of the Act(1) Criteria:Prosecution under Section 56 should be considered in the following types of cases:a) Unauthorised dealing in foreign exchange(i) Carried on as a racket/business involving an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs or more;(ii) where value of foreign exchange seized is equivalent to Rs.2.5 lakhs or more b) Compensatory payments made on one or more occasions and being of the order of Rs. 25 lakhs or abovec) Foreign currency accounts opened illegally and being maintained as such and where amount of foreign exchange involved is equivalent to Rs. 1 lakh and above.d) Export cases Where non-repatriation of export proceeds exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs and the non-repa...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Malik Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT663
Manju Goel, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order framing charges and the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 452/34 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner, Vikram Malik, is the son of the principal accused Sandeep Malik. He pleads that no charge could be framed against him by using Section 34 of IPC. As per the allegations against him he did nothing except having accompanied the principal accused to the premises of the complainant. The gist of the FIR, which was recorded at the instance of the complainant Dinesh Gogna, is that Rs.56 lakhs were due from Sandeep Malik in respect of which Sandeep Malik had given him a note; that on the fateful day Sandeep Malik and his son Vikram Malik entered his shop and Sandeep Malik threatened the complainant and demanded the hand-written note for Rs.56 lakhs at that very moment which the complainant refused and that thereon Sandeep Malik suddenly attacked him with a knife which he had brought ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikant Somani Vs. Ram Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT487
Manju Goel, J.1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.Crl. M.C. 434/2005 in Crl. M.A. 1429/2005:This Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the Orders dated 15.12.2004 passed by Shri Gurdeep Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner had been exempted to appear personally. The petitioner represented to the Court that he was a resident of Pune and thereforee it was inconvenient for him to appear before that personally. The Judgment of the Delhi Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Shivani Sadanand v. State and Anr. : 97(2002)DLT443 and Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and Ors. : 2001CriLJ4250 have been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Order to assert that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from personal appearance. In Shivani Sadanand's case accused was a resident of Bombay and it was observed that it would mean a lot of hardship if he was required to come to Delhi and since the absence of the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Rado Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT223TriDel
1. Both the above appeals are directed against the same order.Accordingly, they were heard together and are disposed of under common order.2. The material facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that M/s. Rado Industries Limited, Faridabad is a manufacturer of Coated Textile Fabrics which are liable to excise duty under Chapter V Heading 5903 of the Central Excise Tariff. Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's factory on 8-12-1999 and found excess of coated textile fabrics, to the extent of 6393 mtrs. They also found substantial excess of inputs. Accounts relating to manufacture and procurement of raw materials had been entered only up to 1-12-1999 Investigations were taken up and the case adjudicated. The lower authorities reached a conclusion that the "party initially did not enter the excess quantity textile fabric to excise record to clear the same clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty". It was also held that the procurement of unaccounted in...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Plast Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT89TriDel
1. These appeals have a common subject, duty demand on imported inputs, which were destroyed by fire accident. the Commissioner held that the goods destroyed are not eligible for exemption. His finding in the case of M/s Ansa Polymers (one of the appellant) is under:- "In view of what is stated above, our clients state that these Written Statements would in any case be produced before your honour by their representative on the 15th October, 2001 at 3.30 p.m. By our clients letter dated 5th October, 2001 it was placed on record that since our Mr. S.N. Kantawala had to appear in Bombay in some other matter, they had engaged another Advocate, Mr. Mehta who arrived all the way from Mumbai for appearing before your Honour but the hearing could not be held and hence, it was requested that hearing should be posted sometime in December due to festival season approaching and Court Vacation. It appears that request has not been accepted. Once again a request is being made to your Honour to take...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Fans (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT91TriDel
1. M/s. Ravi Fans Pvt. Ltd. have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 583/04 dated 30.06.2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed their appeal as time-barred.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture electric fans in their factory located at Kakarmatta, D.L.W. Road, Varanasi and their office is situated at B-29/15, Lanka, Varanasi; that Order-in-Original No. 16/84 dated 30.11.84 was passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting refund claim filed by them; that the said Order-in-Original was sent to one M/s.Ravi Electric Fans (P) Ltd., D.L.W. Road, Varanasi; that they have nothing to do with the said Ravi Electric Fans (P) Ltd. that on their request, an attested copy of the order was given to them on 6.2.878 and immediately they had filed the appeal on 4.5.87, i.e., within the time limit stipulated in section 35A of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has dismissed their a...
Tag this Judgment!Birdi Steels Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT82TriDel
1. Heard ld. SDR. M/s. Birdi Steels made a request to decide the appeal on merits.2. M/s. Birdi Steels filed these appeals against order-in-appeal whereby the differential duty is confirmed and penalties were imposed.3. The dispute in this case is in respect of the valuation of the goods cleared by M/s. Birdi Cycle Industries. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellants were suppressing the value of the goods, which were cleared to their related persons. The Revenue produced the evidence that they were clearing the same goods at a higher value to the independent buyers. Therefore, the appellants were clearing the goods at a lower value to the related persons with intent to evade payment of duty.4. The Revenue also filed appeal against the same impugned order for enhancement of penalty.5. The contention of the appellant in their written submission that impugned order is a non-speaking order as no reason were given for rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Pragati Concrete Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC406
1. The impugned Order has been passed pursuant to the Order of remand of the Tribunal [Final Order Nos. 154-155/2001-D, dated 11-7-2001 in appeal Nos. E/2850/91-D and E/994/2001-D. The issue in dispute was the claim of the appellant for small scale exemption in respect of goods cleared during the period 21-3-90 to July 1991. Although the dispute raised in the show cause notices was that the assessee had not produced permanent Small Scale Industries registration certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries, Delhi (which certificate is a requirement under Notification No. 175/86 for the purposes of small scale exemption), this Tribunal noted that the requirement for the said certificate would not arise in a case "where a manufacturer has been availing of the exemption under this notification during the preceding financial year" and therefore remanded the case with the following direction :- "We, therefore, allow both the appeals and remand the matter to the jurisdictional Adjudic...
Tag this Judgment!Punj Lioyd Ltd. Vs. the India Cements Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi389; III(2005)BC491; 2005(1)CTLJ189(Del); 117(2005)DLT496; 2005(80)DRJ215
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of the above captioned interim applications. IA. No. 4738/2004 is the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying that defendants 1 and 2 be restrained from encashing the bank guarantees No. 031-BG-353 and 031-BG-223 issued by Canara Bank, bank guarantee No. BG.064/03 issued by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and bank guarantee No. 0853403 BG-000085 issued by State Bank of India and further to restrain said banks from making any payment under the said bank guarantees to the beneficiaries, being defendants 1 and 2.2. IA. 5248/2004 is an application under order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by defendants 1 and 2 praying for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 30.7.2004. IA. No. 8187/2004 is the defendants' application under Section 151 CPC seeking preponement of hearing of is No. 5248/2004 and is No. 4739/2004. is No. 303/2005 is the plaintiff's application under Section 151 CPC praying that directions be issued to defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT29; 2005(80)DRJ729
ORDER Under the orders of Additional Commissioner (HQ) dated 20.1.99, the following sewage Beldars who were transferred from DDA to MCD vide office order No. and dated shown against each, are hereby repatriated to the DDA with immediate effect, as they have given in writing to their respective Executive Engineers (CSE) that they will not work as Sewage Beldars for clearing and maintenance of Swears/Nallas:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. Name Of The Office Order No. Date Vide Which Name Of The No. Sewage Transferred To Division Of Cse MCD Where At PresentPosted But RefusedTo Work-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Sh. Ram Kishan s/o E.O. No. 17 Dt. 11.2.98 Najafgarh ZoneSh. Raj Kumar2. Shri Tuloo Ram s/o E.O. No. 17 Dt. 11.2.98 Rohini ZoneSh. Baisakhi Ram3. Shri Tak Chand S/o E.O. No. 10 DT. 10.10.98 Rohini Zone Sh. Mammoo Lal4. Sh. Shambhoo Pd. Singh E.O. No. 10. DT. 10.10.98 Rohini Z...
Tag this Judgment!