Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT735TriDel

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and cess of approximately of Rs. 2 crores which the applicants have quantified as payable by them per month, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh: However, after hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, we find that it would be possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and hence with the consent of both sides, we proceed to dispose of the appeal, after waiving the pre-deposit.2. Vide communication dated 24-2-2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise informed the appellants who are manufacturers of cement and clinker that the benefit of exemption to clinker used for captive consumption under Notification 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 was not available to them as exemption was available only in respect of the goods which are exempt from payment of excise duty. The same communication held that the assessees were not entitled to provisional assessment as t...

Perfect Thread Mills Ltd. and S.P. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC287

2. The appellants were manufacturing both the dutiable and exempted goods from common inputs. While clearing the exempted goods, they were debiting the Modvat credit on taken the inputs vised in the manufacture of such exempted goods. However, on visit of the preventive officers to the factory of the appellants on 10.1.03, it was found that they had cleared the exempted goods but did not debit the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,06,574 at the time of clearance of exempted goods and utilised such credit for clearance of dutiable goods. On being pointed out by the department, the appellants accepted their mistake and debited the amount on 11.1.03 and 15.1.03. Subsequently, adjudication proceedings are initiated for imposition of penalty on both the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority imposing penalty of Rs. 3,06,574 on M/s Perfect Thread Mills Ltd. but reduced the penalty imposed on Shri S.P. Mehta, General Manager of the Perfect Thread Mil...

Abhishek Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT397TriDel

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi has confiscated computer parts imported by M/s. Abhishek Electronics on 11-10-2002 and 12-10-2002 with option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and 7 lakhs respectively, enhanced the value of the imported items to US $ 11 per piece and confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,30,048/- (on goods seized on 11-10-2002) and Rs. 4,94,431 /- (on goods seized on 12-10-2002) and imposed penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Atul Malhotra, Proprietor of Abhishek Electronics, Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Kishori Lal, Postal Clerk, Foreign Post Office, Rs. 50,000/- on Rajesh Kumar, Inspector Customs who was Sorting Assistant, Speed Post Centre, Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Vishnu Kumar, Sorting Assistant at Speed Post Centre.2. We have heard both the sides. The confiscation and enhancement of value is not contested by M/s. Abhishek Electronics who only plead leniency in the quantum of fine and penalty, having regard to the fact that d...

New Era Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT327TriDel

2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate pleaded that the appellants had brought a machine in their factory and the machine was dismantled to know the various parts and components used in that machine and after dismantling and knowing the various parts and components used in that machine, the appellants manufactured similar type of the machines. They have taken Modvat credit on the machine, which was denied by the lower authorities on the ground that it was not used in the manufacture of the goods. The ld. Advocate pleaded that since the appellants had dismantled the machine to know the various parts and components of this machine and with that knowledge, they have manufactured new machines in their factory, therefore, they are eligible for Modvat credit. He relied on the following decisions : (1) Maditron v. CCE, Calcutta [1999 (113) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal)] wherein it was held that Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) system and High Voltage Test Set (HVTS) required for running computers which in...

Rishi Vs. Pushpa

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complainant on account of deficiency in service claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of medical negligence on the part of the respondent inasmuch as that during the termination of pregnancy, her uterus was removed and also small intestine was cut. It was dismissed merely on the ground that the case of criminal negligence has been registered against the respondent and the matter is pending trial under IPC before the Criminal Court. 2. We have taken a view that proceedings for criminal negligence are independent proceedings. Proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are on account of deficiency in service or medical negligence. Criminal negligence is distinguishable from deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Criminal negligence involves element of rashness. It is a penal offence and attracts sentence of imprisonment and fine. On the other hand deficiency as defined under Section 2...

Collectors of Customs Vs. Margra Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT288TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 154/04 dated 14.6.2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Revenue is liable to reimburse the demurrage and detention charges paid by M/s. Margra Industries Ltd. 2. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned S.D.R., mentioned that the question of payment of demurrage and detention charges is not a matter that can be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) as such charges are not covered by the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. He relied upon the decision in the case of Sawhney Export House (P) Ltd. v. C.C., Mumbai, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 81 (T) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that provisions of Section 27 do not deal with the refund of any demurrage charges and there is no provision for refund and reimbursement of demurrage charges paid by an assessee; that the Tribunal, therefore, has rejected the appeal filed by the importer.3. Countering the arguments, Sh. B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that it has bee...

N.K. Enterprises and Venkatesh Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC241

2. Appellant filed these appeals. The common issue arises in both these appeals therefore, they are being taken up together. The appellant made import of old and used photocopier machines. In the case of M/s. N.K.Enterprises the appellant declared the value of the consignment as Rs. 39,30,665/- and in the case of M/s. Venkatesh Enterprises the appellant declared the value of the goods as Rs. 54,66,718/-. The value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Customs authorities and in the case of M/s. N.K. Enterprises the value of goods was enhanced to Rs. 50,42000/- and in the case of M/s. Venkatesh Enterprises the value enhanced to Rs. 71,43,522/-. The adjudicating authority also confiscated the goods on the ground that these are consumer goods and are imported in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy.3. The appellants are not challenging the confiscation of the goods in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijay Traders Vide Final Order No. 347-352/05-NB(A)...

Mohd. HussaIn Ansari Vs. State, Govt. of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4437; 119(2005)DLT174; I(2005)DMC695; 2005(81)DRJ511

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th January, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act thunder go life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in default under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in default under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By the aforesaid judgment and order it was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the charge framed against the appellant under Section 30 IPC and Section 498 IPC did not stand established against him.2. On the allegation that Smt. Abida, who was residing in the same house as that of Smt. Mushrrat, PW4, was burnt in House No.568 by her husband, the appellant herein, a case was registered after...

Har Prasad @ Lala Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT358; 2005(81)DRJ357

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 920 of 2002, 933/2002, 497/2002, 743/2002, 771/2002 and 394/2003 are directed against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 90/2000 in FIR No. 147/99, Police Station Mansarovar Park, whereby the learned Judge has held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302/120B and 201/120B IPC. The learned Judge vide separate order of the same date sentenced the accused persons to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 120B IPC, for life under Section 302/120B IPC together with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof further rigorous imprisonment of two months. The learned Judge has also sentenced the accused persons under Section 201/120B IPC for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The facts of the case, as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge,...

Rajiv Srivastava Vs. Sanjiv Tuli and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi319; 119(2005)DLT202

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th April, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.104 of 2000 decreeing the aforesaid suit for possession in respect of flat bearing No.B-46, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, new Delhi and directing for handing over and vacating the suit premises to the respondents herein within a period of three months. It was also ordered that the claim for mesne profit/damages w.e.f 1.4.1999 till the date of delivery of the possession would be determined under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a separate enquiry. thereforee, in this particular appeal the scope of scrutiny would be confined to only the decree of possession, which was granted by the learned trial court in the aforesaid suit on the basis of an application filed by the respondents under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We had heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the said iss...