Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 21 of about 296 results (0.022 seconds)Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT13
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The appellant registered himself under the HUDCO Scheme in the year 1979 and deposited the initial amount of Rs.4,500/-. The appellant was given priority no.8759 for MIG flat but claims that no communication was received by him allotting any specific flat. It is alleged that in the month of May, 1990, the appellant read a newspaper report in `Hindustan Times' dated 06.05.1990 stating that allotment of flats have been cleared up to priority No.8838, which was higher than the priority number of the petitioner. The appellant thus approached the respondent to collect his allotment-demand letter. In terms of the said letter, the appellant was allotted MIG flat No.9432, First Floor, Pocket B, Dilshad Garden on hire-purchase basis at the disposable cost of Rs.1,89,300/-. Since allotment was on hire-purchase basis, the appellant deposited the initial amount of Rs.33,865.96 on 05.12.1990.2. At the stage when the appellant was to take possession of the flat, it came to notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Swaroop Sharma Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006ACJ2181; 119(2005)DLT509
Manju Goel, J.1. This petition seeks setting aside charge framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 304A of the IPC on the allegation that on account of negligence of the petitioner who was the owner of the factory known as Vishwa Karma Engineering Works, the watchman of the factory Devidutt suffered an electric shock on 14.6.2001 and died on account of the same. It is submitted in the petition that there was no material before the court on the basis of which the charge under Section 304A could have been framed. The petition is opposed at this stage. 2. As per the FIR the Police reached the spot soon after Devidutt received the electric shock and it was revealed to the SHO on enquiry that rain water had accumulated in the factory which was being removed by the deceased Devidutt and Murari Lal with the help of a Tullu pump and a GI pipe when the electrocution took place. Deceased was holding the pipe which was submerged in the water and he himself was also sitting in the accum...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen as Represented by Wings Wear Workers Lal Jhanda Union and ors. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT403
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Workmen of Wings Wear Private Limited has filed this petition seeking winding up of the company on the ground that salaries to them have not been paid. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent and after hearing both the parties, order dated 7th November, 2002 was passed inter alias recording that a sum of Rs. 31 lacs was due and payable pursuant to the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and that if the said award is given effect to fully, approximately Rs. 1 crore would be outstanding against the respondent. Contention of the Counsel for the respondent was noted to the effect that amount payable was not Rs. 1 crore. However, liability to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs was admitted. In view of this, the Court formed the opinion that the respondent company was indebted to the petitioner. This petition was accordingly admitted to hearing and old was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator. Liberty was also granted to the respondent company to appr...
Tag this Judgment!Himachal Futuristic Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT92TriDel
1. The benefit of exemption from payment of Customs duty in terms of Notification No. 21/02 at Sl. No. 320 of the tables thereto has been denied to the appellants herein on the parts/components of accessories of mobile hand sets on the ground that the imported items viz.chargers, battery and antenna did not fall for classification under CTA Heading 8529.90 as required under the Notification.2. We have heard both the sides. There is no dispute that the imported items are accessories of CDMA mobile hand sets. They are, therefore, covered by the description of the goods under Sl. No. 320. As per Col 2 of Sl. No. 320, the goods must fall for classification under CTA 8529.90 or any other Chapter .Therefore, the importers are correct in their contention that as long as the goods are covered by the description set out against Sl. No. 320, which they admittedly are, they are eligible to exemption irrespective of where the items fall for classification. We, therefore, set aside the impugned or...
Tag this Judgment!Sheet Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT148TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the confiscation of 45,400 pcs. of auto parts valued about Rs. 10 lakhs with a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant.2. I have perused the records and heard both sides. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant had informed the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent vide letter dated 14th January 2003 that due to depressed market condition, stocks were accumulated and the appellant was keeping freshly produced goods in packed condition outside the Bonded Store Room; but within the factory premises. Subsequently, on 15th February 2003, the officers visited the appellant's premises and raised allegation that the appellant was keeping finished goods without accountal for the purpose of clandestine removal.3. The contention of the appellant is that the storage outside the Bonded Store Room was only on account of accumulation of stock and non-entry of stock in the statutory record ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Progressive Organics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT221TriDel
1. None appeared for the respondent assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is being disposed of after hearing the learned SDR and perusing the records.2. The dispute in the present case is about the exemption under Notification No. 9/01. Under the Adjudication order, the exemption was denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee was not located in a rural area. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has overturned that finding with the following observations : In the instance case, the department has not adduced any evidence that village Sujruh has been declared as an urban area, whereas the appellant shave produced a certificate dt. 25.7.2000 of Tehsildar, Muzaffarnagar, which is placed on record, Certifying that village Sujruh is situated beyond the limits of Municipal Committee, Muzaffarnagar and alls under the rural area, as per the orders of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The said certificate duly satisfies the definition of rural area as given in the said Notification, sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Kangra Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC783
1. The appellants herein imported old and used photocopiers, filing Bills of Entry for the same. The value declared was not accepted by the Revenue. Show cause notices were issued proposing enhancement of the value and proposing confiscation of the goods on the ground that they are consumer goods requiring specific Licence for import. The authorities below enhanced the value and ordered confiscation of the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine and also imposed penalty upon the importers. Hence these appeals.2. On hearing both sides, we find that both the issues stand covered by the Tribunal's Order in M/s. Competent Business Machines v.Commissioner of Customs, Trichirapalli - Final Order No. 18/05/NB-A dated 31-12-2004. The Tribunal has held that second-hand photocopiers are capital goods, on the basis of its earlier decision in M/s. SKD Commercial v. Commissioner of Customs - Final Order No.A/893/WZB/04/C-II dated 25-10-2004 [2005 (180) E.L.T. 84 (T)]. On the valuat...
Tag this Judgment!Bonny Baby Care (Pvt.) Ltd., Baby Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT101TriDel
1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 52,08,958/- and penalty of equal amount imposed on M/s. Bonny Baby Care (Pvt.) Ltd. and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs respectively on M/s. Bonny Baby Care (Pvt.) Ltd. and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs respectively on M/s. Bonny Baby Marketing Co. and Shri Subhash Aneja arises out of Order of the Commissioner Central Excise, Noida. The demand covers the period from 2.6.1998 to 31.3.2004. The ground for confirmation of duty demand is manufacture of feeding bottles by the applicants under the brand name of others resulting in denial of SSI exemption benefit.2. We have heard both sides. We find that prior to 2002 the applicants were assembling the feeding out of purchased/bought out items. In this connection the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Narang Latex and Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-2001 (134) ELT 482 (Tribunal) holding that the activity of assembling and packing of plastic and glass bottles bo...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Anjani thermoformers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC127
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 75,264 to the respondents on the capital goods.2. Heard the learned JDR and Representative of the respondents and gone through the record.3. The facts are not in dispute at all. The respondents had availed the modvat credit on the strength of duty paying documents i.e. invoices which were not in their name. The invoices were in the name of another unit though that unit also belonged to the respondents who allegedly transferred the goods to the respondents after a period of 10 months from the date of receipt. That unit also made no endorsement on the invoices while transferring the goods to the respondents. Therefore, on the basis of invoices which were not in the name of respondents but in the name of some other unit, no credit could be taken by them, on the capital goods, covered thereunder.4. The argument of the Representative of the respondents i...
Tag this Judgment!Banmore Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC137
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed refund claim in respect of the duty paid under protest on the clearance of waste packages/containers in which the inputs; were received by them.Appellants filed the refund claims in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CCE, 2003 (155) ELT 111 (SC). The Adjudicating Authority allowed the refund and directed the same to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Found on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their customers.4. The only contention of the appellants is that they have not charged duty from their customers and also relied upon the two certificates issued by their customers to show that duty has not been paid b...
Tag this Judgment!