Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT315TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund in respect of duty paid has been rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Extruded products and they filed necessary declarations. The Revenue directed the appellant to include the value of bought out items such as Glass and Hardware items in the assessable value of goods cleared by him. The appellant started paying duty by including the value of glass and other hardware items in the assessable value of the final product. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that value of bought out items is not to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by them.3. The revenue raised a preliminary objection that as appellants were paying duty without protest and after including of the value of bought out items in the assessable value/goods manufactured by them...

Sumit Zarda Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Sumit Zarda Pvt. Ltd. have filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 158/2003 dated 23.7.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confirmation of duty, imposition of penalty, and confiscation of goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine.2. Shri Abhishek Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture chewing tobacco during the process of which the intermediate product, namely kimam comes into existence; that the proportion in which various type of ingredients are mixed to obtain the blend is trade secret which is known only to the blender; that Shri S G Gupta, Managing Director of the Appellant company is the blender and the various ingredients and kimam were sent to him from the factory premises for the purpose of blending various ingredients; that the tempo in which the said kimam was being taken to the Managing Director was intercepted by the Central Excise Officers as the same had been cleared without payment of duty...

Komal Straw Board and Mill Board Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT584TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Komal Straw Board & Mill Board Industries, is whether the benefit of Notification No.22/94, amended by Notification No. 22/95, is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri Ajay Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured paper and paper board as a small scale unit; that they are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-1993, being small scale unit and they are also eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 22/94-C.E. dated 1-3-1994 as they fulfilled all the conditions stipulated therein; that for the financial year, 1994-95, they filed the classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and availed exemption under Notification No. 1/93; that after exceeding slab of Rs. 30 lakh, they switched over to the Notification No. 22/94 from 22-7-1994. He, further, mentioned that Notification No. 22/94 was amended by Notification No. 22/95-C.E.da...

Northern Railways Mechanical Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT210TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Northern Railways Mechanical Works, the issue relates to the demand of duty on waste and scrap of iron & steels as during the period no exemption notification was in force.2. Mrs. Suvira Lal, learned Advocate, submitted that the mechanical workshop manufacture railway wagons for use of the Indian Railway; that wagons are exempt from payment of Central Excise duty; that during the course of manufacture of railway wagons, ferrous waste and scrap falling under Heading 72.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff emerges which is being sent by them to the Controller of Stores, Northern Railways for sale through auction; that the duty has been demanded from them for the period from 1-3-1994 to 15-3-1995 under the impugned Order on the ground that the Notification No. 171/1988-C.E., dated 30-5-1988 which has exempted ferrous waste and scrap was rescinded by the Central Government by Notification No. 64/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. The learned Advocate,...

Pramod Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ173CAT

1. In this second round of listen applicant impugns respondents' order dated 28.10.2003, where on denial of full medial re-imbursement an amount of Rs. 45,472/- has been allowed.2. Applicant who was on duty on 1.10.2001 at New Delhi had come to know a sudden fall of his wife from the stairs as a result of which she had sustained head injuries and became unconscious, was taken to the nearby nursing home at Aligarh in emergency. When no improvement was foresighted and the condition had deteriorated, Directorate of Medical College had advised applicant to take his wife to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where she was admitted in ICU on 3.11.2001. On improvement of the condition of the wife of applicant she was shifted to Central Railway Hospital and discharged on 29.11.2001. Thereafter applicant filed a claim of medical re-imbursement to the tune of Rs. 1,13,555/-, which was rejected on 5.8.2002 on the ground of non-referral, resulting of filing of O.A. 2456/2002. By an order dated 26.2.2003 the ...

Kehar Singh Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT86

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner (Kehar Singh S/o Chotu Ram) submits that he is and old man of 67 years and no injury has been attributed to him. According to him, the role ascribed by the prosecution is that he caught hold of Naveen when he was attacked by Lilly with a farsa. He further says that he is in no way responsible for the death of Anil, who died due to blows given by other persons. He further submits that cross cases have been lodged between the complainant partly and the accused part with regard to the same incident. Further, he submits that the charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of FIR No. 73/2003 registered at Police Station J.P. Kalan under, inter alia, Section 307 of the IPC. However, all those accused in that case are on anticipatory bail, whereas all the accused in the present case are in judicial custody. The petitioner has been in custody for over two years. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shriram ...

Manjeet Kumar Anand Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT98

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Vigilance report which was placed before the court was considered by me and it appears that the report is not in favor of the petitioner. He had alleged that he was mal-treated at the hands of the police. From the report, it appears that that allegation is not substantiated. In any event, that report is on a different aspect of the matter entirely. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a fit case in which the petitioner ought to be granted anticipatory bail. He further submitted that the only offence for which the FIR was registered was under Section 506 of the IPC, which according to him is a bailable offence and he should not be arrested. In support of this contention, he cited a decision of this court in the case of Narendra Kumar and Ors. v. State and Ors. passed in Crl M (M) 3322/2004 decided on 13.01.20042. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail on several grou...

Amar Nath Sehgal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT717; 2005(30)PTC253(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Copyright is one of the three main branches of the traditional law of intellectual property, along with patent law and trade mark law. Overshadowed historically by the economic worth of patents and trade marks, the plaintiff who believes that there can be no beauty without a soul, has brought the present action, hoping that the soul (copyright) is given its due place and recognition in the history of law.2. The Cinderella (Copyright) of the family of intellectual property, long pushed into the chimney seeks, in the present proceedings, to endow herself with the gift of the fairy godmother - the magical pumpkin coach and the mice footmen.3. Plaintiff's pleadings takes one back to the year 1957. A peep behind the pleadings would take us back to the early fifties.4. India was a nascent democracy. The world was divided into two camps, the American camp and the Soviet Russia camp. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of this country, a man of vision, reali...

Raj Mohan Singh Vs. Mcd Thru Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT106; 2005(80)DRJ599; 2006(1)SLJ332(Delhi)

ORDERShri Raj Mohan Singh, Dy. Commissioner on ad hoc basis and at present working as Director(Pry. Education) is hereby promoted to the post of Addl. Commissioner in the pay scale of Rs.18400-22400/- on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 1.7.2003 initially for a period of one year, or till such time the post is filled up on regular basis, which ever is earlier.The above said ad hoc appointment shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:-i) The appointment shall be purely on ad hoc basis, as a matter of stop gap arrangement and shall not entitle the officer to claim any benefit on account of the said promotion.ii) The appointment is on ad hoc basis pending regular appointment in accordance with the Recruitment Regulations and will not confer any privilege or right on the officer for regular appointment to the said post.iii) The period of ad hoc service will not be counted towards eligibility period for regular promotion for determination of seniority.iv) The ad hoc appointment can be term...

Madan Lal Mokhawal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT212; 2005(80)DRJ625

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. By this petition a direction is sought for setting aside/quashing a decision of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cancelling the allotment of a flat to the petitioner by reason of non-payment of the demand.2. The petitioner had registered himself in the ''New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979'' (hereinafter called ''The Scheme'') . Upon his transfer to Saoner, District Nagpur, the petitioner intimated DDA about the change in his address by a letter dated 9.10.1999.3. Apparently, the petitioner's name figured in a draw of lots and he was declared successful, on 15.9.1998. Consequently, a demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the old, previous address of the petitioner, despite his having intimated about the change in address. The letter was received back leading to its being dispatched again by courier service some time in February, 1999. The petitioner could not be served with the demand-cum-notice and the courier returned the communication, as undelivered....