Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Om Kishan @ Ommi Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2005
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT673; 2005(81)DRJ742
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. On 07.03.2005 when this matter was argued, the following order was passed:-'The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that it is alleged that the petitioner had placed a revolver on the prosecutrix's head and pushed her into the room where the co-accused, Manoj is said to have committed rape on her. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that had this been the truth, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have called the Police Control Room and given the information that the accused Manoj and the prosecutrix were available in that particular place. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed to page 13 of the paper book which is a copy of the 'customer outgoing call details' of a Reliance Infocom telephone to show that on 03.02.2005 at 12.48 p.m. a call was made to the Police Control Room having a duration of 1 minute 46 seconds. The learned counsel for th...
Allahabad Glass Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC429
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Allahabad Glass Works (P) Ltd. is whether in the year 1988, show cause notice invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act can be issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate submitted that a show cause notice dated 31.8.88 has been issued to the Appellants for demanding the Central Excise duty for the period from 1983-84 to 1986-87 alleging the suppression of value by the Appellants; that during the relevant period only the Collector of Central Excise was authorized to issue a show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation; that in case of CCE, Indore v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, 1998 (103) ELT 3 (SC), the Apex Court has held that when the show cause notice is issued within the ambit of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, "the show cause was required to be issued by Collector of Central Excise." 3. Countering the arguments, Shri...
Continental Containers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT311TriDel
1. Both the above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original dated 24-9-2003 vide which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty demand with penalties and interest as detailed therein for the periods 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 against the appellants.2. The duty demand has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground of having suppressed the manufacture and sale of the tin containers during the period in dispute with the aid of power with a view to evade the payment of duty and thereby to avail the benefit of SSI exemption limit and exemption under Notification Nos. 5/98, 5/99 and 6/2000 which exempted the goods from payment of duty, if manufactured without the aid of power.3. The learned Counsel has contended that the appellants had been producing part of goods (containers) with the aid of power and part without the aid of power during the period in dispute and they had paid the duty in accordance with the law at the time of clearance of the ...
Ajay Kalsi, Phonix International Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC139
1. These three appeals, filed by M/s. Phoenix International Ltd. and others, arise out of Order-in-Original No. 23/2003 dated 1.12.2003 by which the Commissioner of Customs has confirmed the demand of Customs duty and imposed penalties on all the three Appellants besides confiscating the goods imported by them with an opinion to redeem the same on payment of fine.2.1 Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Advocate, mentioned that the Appellant company imported a consignment of Shoe Uppers against a 'Quantity Based Advance Licence' (QBAL - in short) No. 2009426 which was valid up to 30.6.98; that they had placed orders for shoe uppers with M/s. Wickwod Development Ltd. in April 1998 with instructions to effect the shipment in June 1998; that accordingly the goods had been received at the Odessa Port on 29.6.98 and on 30.6.98, the goods were taken for shipment and were thus went out of hands of the supplier; that the goods were stuffed into container CAXU-411799-4; that on 26.7.1998, t...
Noida Medicare Centre Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT256TriDel
1. The dispute is, whether the appellants satisfy the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 64/88, dated 1-3-1988 with regard to free treatment of patients. The notification requires that at least 40% of their outdoor patients should get free treatment. The duty demand has been confirmed under the present order upon a finding that for the years 1991 to 1999, the appellants registered an average of only 39% for free treatment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that in certain years the appellants had also treated more than 40% free patients.2. It is not clear from the notification, as to whether the percentage is to be worked out on an annual basis or on overall basis. If latter is the case, the years subsequent to 1999 would also be relevant. In any case, the appellants are very close to the percentage stipulated in the above said notification. Under these circumstances, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and recovery stayed....
Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC267
1. Shri Rajesh Chhiber, learned Advocate, pleaded that the appellants are stocking their goods in a proper manner for which he has produced the proof and pleaded that the net weight is also mentioned on each of the package. Therefore, the excess found by the officers which is about 0.6% of the total weight may be due to calculation mistake. He also referred to the statement of Shri P.K. Aggarwal, General Manager, recorded on 5.9.2001 where in reply to question No. 2 he stated that difference as compared to the physical holding of the stock is negligible and could be on account of various reasons, such as recording the weight of the coils/products. He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal under Final Order No. A/1502/04-NB(SM) dated 14.10.2004 wherein the case of appellants themselves proceedings were dropped on the ground that the verification carried out suffers from uncertainty. He also relied upon the following decisions--Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, 2000 (69...
Kalyan Agro Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT268TriDel
2. Out of the duty demand of Rs. 1.4 lakhs, the appellants had already deposited Rs. 75,000/-. In our view, this deposit is sufficient for the purpose of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the requirement for pre-deposit of the remaining amount is waived and recovery stayed.3. The learned Counsel brings to our notice the detention memo dated 15-2-2005 detaining the appellants' goods for the recovery of this amount.4. Needless to say, this action is totally erroneous on the part of the Department. When the stay application was pending before this Tribunal, the authorities should not have taken any recovery proceedings. In view of this, the detention memo is quashed and the appellants will be at liberty to deal with these goods, as per law....
Magnam Paper Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT236TriDel
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Magnum Papers Ltd., is whether the MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs is available to them during the month of March, 2000.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants have two units manufacturing paper and paper board and avail of MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs, i.e. a number of chemicals; that they also avail MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on capital goods; that Notification No. 6/2000-CE, dated 1.3.2000 (Sr. No. 77) grants exemption on first clearance on 210 M.T. of Paper and Paper Board for the month of March, 2000; that the Department has disallowed the MODVAT Credit involved in inputs contained in the semifinished/finished goods lying in stock as on 1.3.2000. The learned Advocate submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 (Sr. No. 77) was available subject to the condition No. 15 specified in the Notification; that condition No. 15 does not mention any restriction abou...
Canteen Mazdoor Sabha (Regd.) and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ118CAT
1. Canteen Mazdoor Sabha, represented through its President, and one more affected party have filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: "A. Call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the order dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure-h) and Order dated 20.3.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 with further declaration that the applicant continued to be employee of Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation till 3.5.1999 and their absorption in the National Airport Authority by impugned order dated 13.12.2001 by respondent No. 2 was illegal and hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act; B. Give further declaration that the persons mentioned in Para (ix) of the application have completed 10 years of service with the Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi and are entitled to all other service/retiral benefits including pension; C. Give directions to the respondents to release arrears of benefit in view of the abovementio...
Ashish Kumar Pal Vs. State (Govt. of Nct Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT30; 2005(81)DRJ759
R.C. Jain, J.1. Prashant Kumar Pal along with his brother-Ashish Kumar Pal, stand convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC, 120B IPC, 506 IPC and Section 342 of the IPC. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, RI for one year for offence under Section 120B IPC, RI for three years for the offence under Section 506 IPC and to undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 342 IPC. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently vide an order dated 9.9.1999. The appellants have filed separate appeals against their conviction and sentence. After the appeal remained pending for some time, vide an order dated 8.3.2001 passed by R.S. Sodhi, J, the sentences of the appellants were suspended during the pendency of the appeal on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »