Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Bee Kay Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT475TriDel

1. The issue that arises for consideration in the appeals of M/s Bee Kay Cement Limited is the same. Accordingly, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. Facts first. The appellant manufactures cement from raw materials like clinker, fly ash and gypsum. Process is basically one of grinding and mixing these inputs at high temperature.3. Cement is liable to Central Excise duty and the stage for payment is the time of removal from the factory. Appellant was following this stipulation. Even so, show cause notices were issued to the appellant alleging that it had removed certain quantities of cement produced by it without paying Central Excise duty. The basis for the allegation was that the quantity of cement accounted in revenue documents from time to time was less than the total quantity of raw material consumed. Notice dated 26.4.2000 states as under: On examination of Central Excise records from April 2000 to Sept. 2000 it was noticed that they ar...

L.G. Hotline Cpt Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The dispute is about the modvat credit of Rs. 79,956/- and penalty of Rs. 8,000/-. The credit has been denied on the ground that the appellant took the modvat credit without physical receipt of the inputs. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no requirement for physical receipt of the input and the credit is available even when the input directly goes to any job worker. In the present case, the job worker who was the supplier, retained the inputs to carry out job work. The reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the cases of Raymond Synthetic Ltd. v.CCE, Allahabad 2001 135 ELT 170 and Lupin Laboratories Vs. Collector - 1994 71 ELT 914.2. The appellant's case is covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal. The denial of credit was not justified. So too, the penalty.The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, to the appellant....

Haseeba Khatoon (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Rafiq and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT390; 2005(82)DRJ628

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order dated 24th December, 2002(Annexure P-15) passed in RCA.No.13/2001 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `Article 227') dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XL Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC') for staying the dispossession of the petitioner from the suit premises in execution case No. 42/1995 (M-17/2002) titled 'Mohd. Rafiq v. Rustam Kan' pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi.2. The facts of the case as stated in brief are :-(a) on 14th November, 1975 Suit No.301/74 for declaration of the petitioner's mother, Salloo Khatoon's title on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 8.10.70 was dismissed as withdrawn and compromised with Rustam Khan. Though Mohd. Rafiq was not a party to the suit nor bound by this judgment.(b) Suit No.196/77 was filed by Mohd. Rafiq against Rustam Khan(husband of petitioner...

National Small Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sh. Takdir Singh, S/O G ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)BC303; 120(2005)DLT397; 2005(82)DRJ286

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The National Small Scale Industries Corporation Limited (in short called NSIC) which is a Government of India Undertaking, with a view to promote small scale industries, supplies machinery to small entrepreneurs. One of the beneficiaries of the said scheme was Shri Takdir Singh who is respondent before us. On 8.5.1991 the NSIC supplied to the respondent three lathe machines and on 31st May, 1991 the parties entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement. The payment towards the hire charges for the said machines was to be made by way of thirteen half- yearly Installments. The first Installment, as per the terms of the Agreement, was for Rs. 17,113/- and it was payable on or before 1st July, 1992. The remaining twelve Installments were for Rs.10,550/- each and were payable after every six months. The respondent however, committed default in making the payment towards Installments due. In fact, he made no payment on due dates against any of the Installments. He had issued thre...

Arun Kumar Garg Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT579

Gita Mittal, J.1. The present writ petition brings to the fore the manner in which judicial pronouncements are not being given effect to in a timely manner thereby defeating the directions made therein. This Court vide a judgment which is reported at 112 (2004) DLT 53 entitled Abhinitam v. University of Delhi and others issued specific directions in its judgment dated 8th April, 2004 directing the respondents as follows:-'22. Before parting with the matter, I am constrained to comment on certain aspects which have come to the notice of this Court during the proceedings of the present matter. The admission process apparently was started in November, 2003 and took shade only in December, 2003 when more than half the term was over. This is an extremely undesirable situation. Once the departments finalise their merit list, expeditious steps should be taken to fill up the seats in the hostel on merit as otherwise students are left to fend for themselves. The second aspect arises on account ...

Dr. Harbhajan Singh Awla Vs. Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT558; 2005(82)DRJ272

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the legal propriety of the Order dated 22.7.2003 whereby - 'In pursuance of Clause (g) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), read with proviso to sub-rule (3 A) of Rule 4 of the Central Warehousing Corporation Rules, 1963, the Central Government hereby extends the term of Shri N.K. Choubey as Managing Director for another five years with effect from 14.5.2003 (afternoon), or until further orders, and grant of Schedule 'scale of pay to him.'2. The Petitioner's assault is predicated on his interpretation of Section 7 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and Rule 4 of the Warehousing Corporation Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') to the effect that it was mandatory that the Directors should have been consulted prior to the reappointment. The relevant provisions are reproduced for facility of reference:7. (1) The board of directors...

The Director General, Csir and anr. Vs. Shri Seravjeet Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT445

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The petitioners herein issued a circular dated 6th November, 1990, relevant portion of which is extracted herein below for ready reference and for proper appreciation of the facts of the present case:'ToThe Directors/Heads of all National Labs/Instts.Sub: Incentives for acquiring higher qualifications.Sir,I am directed to state that the Governing Body at its meeting held on 25.9.1990 has approved as under:'Those employees who were in position on 31.12.1981 and have acquired/will acquire entry level qualifications of next group may be assessed once to the next higher grade in the same group two years earlier than the normal period of assessment prescribed in NRAS/MANAS provided they attain the prescribed threshold'.2. The condition of first class M.Sc/B.E.,as laid down for entry in Group-IV will not apply in such assessments.3. Other conditions prescribed in MANAS will continue to apply except that such employees will be assessed only once in the grade under this...

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. I.S. Ratta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT407

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant bank as against the judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1997 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 6/89. The appellant was a tenant under the respondents in respect of flat No. 3, First Floor along with Mezzanine floor, located at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi(for short the 'flat') having approximate area of 1443 sq. ft.2. The facts in brief are that the suit premises, namely, the flat in question was leased out in favor of the appellant by the respondents through a registered lease deed dated 28th October, 1975 for a period of seven years commencing from 1st October, 1975. The said lease deed contained a renewal clause to the following effect:'To hold the demised premises up to the bank/for the term of seven years to be computed from 1st day of October One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Five with option to the lessee of renewing the lease of the demised premises for a further period of f...

Col. N.K. Yadav and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT600; 2005(82)DRJ703

B.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioners are holding the rank of Colonel in the Army services. They are aggrieved of their side stepping/shifting to the posts of Director (Transport) and Director (Personnel) respectively.2. Petitioner no.1 was posted as Director (Provisioning) by respondent no.4 on 1st February, 2005 and petitioner no.2 as Director (Contracts) by this respondent on 2nd December, 2004. By a signal dated 13th April, 2005, they had been shifted/side stepped to the post of Director (Transport) and the Director (Personnel) respectively. They questioned this action in the present petition and also challenge the validity of respondent's policy relating to 'integrity check'. They accordingly pray that this criteria of 'integrity check' be quashed and so be their side stepping/shifting from their posts. Petitioners' case is that criteria of minimum 8 in the star qualities as laid down in the 'integrity check' (criteria) is wholly perverse and contrary to the instructions contained in the AC...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shri M.L. Sodhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT285

Manju Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd August, 1984 passed by Shri A.S. Yadav, M.M., whereby the respondent M.L.Sodhi was acquitted of the offence under Section 14 read with 29 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act).2. The allegation against the respondent was that he was running an office under the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Finance Exchange in the entire basement of plot No. 12-A, Sagar Apartments, Tilak Marg, New Delhi in contravention of the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. During trial the petitioner proved that the respondent was running an office under the name of M/s. Laxmi Finance Exchange in the basement of the building known as Sagar Apartments, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It was further proved by the prosecution witness that the building in question fell in the Development Zone D-3 of the Master Plan for Delhi and should be used for residential purpose only. The learned M.M. found the facts in favor of the a...