Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 8 of about 292 results (0.020 seconds)Saurabhmani Gems Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT82TriDel
1. The matter is posted today for hearing the stay application.However, during the hearing, we have heard both sides at length.Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The appellant before us exported from Jaipur a consignment of cut and polished semi-precious gem stones under invoice dated 31-3-1999 to Italy. The consignment consisted of 35 lots of different varieties, weights, value. The appellant's buyer in Italy returned the consignment under invoice dated 20-7-2000. The invoices covering the return consignment described the goods in the same terms (lot number-wise) as the sale invoice of the appellant.3. The Customs Notification No. 94/96 allowed the duty free return of exported goods. The appellant filed Bill of Entry claiming clearance of the consignment in terms of that Notification. On examination of the consignment, the Customs authorities found that there was shortage in the consignment. It was seen that,...
Tag this Judgment!Overseas Traders Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (imp. and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT42TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the refund of duty to the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported one consignment of cosmetic goods. They filed Bill of Entry dated 11-4-2000 for the clearance of those goods. The competent authority assessed the customs duty payable on the goods and they deposited the same on 15-4-2000. Thereafter, the goods were confiscated and reassessed in pursuance to the order of the Addl. Commissioner. The goods were ordered to be confiscated with an option to re-deem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and short paid customs duty of Rs. 1,03,271/-. That order was, however, challenged by the appellants before the Tribunal who set aside the same. Again the customs duty was reassessed along with redemption fine, by the competent authority.3. The appellants thereafter changed their mind and abandoned the goods by making reference to t...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chander Vs. State, Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT401
ORDERBadar Durrez Ahmed, J. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.Bail Application 1338/2005:1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is deserving grant of bail on several counts. Firstly, he has already been in custody since 1.3.2005 and the challan has also been filed on 13.4.2005. He further submits that the present petitioner although named in the FIR was not given any role of cheating in the statement contained in the FIR. It is only in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 1.3.2005, about a month-and-a-half after the incident, that the petitioner is sought to be implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, not at all concerned with the transaction that was taking place between the complainant and the main accused. It is only at the instance of the complainant that the petitioner was called and was made a party to the transaction. This fact is clearly disclosed in the FIR itself.2. The learned Counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rajinder and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ561
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This petition for leave to appeal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 9.11.1998, acquitting the respondents, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, was filed only on 29.4.2003. Certain objections were raised and it was refiled only on 22.7.2003.2. The State has filed Crl. M. No. 62/2003 for condensation of delay and another Crl. M. No. 84/2003 has been filed for condensation of delay in refiling the appeal after removal of objections. Averments made in the application dated 8.8.2003, which is the subsequent application filed is that there was a delay of 436 days in initial filing and 3 years and 22 days in refiling the appeal. Para 11 of the Crl. M. No. 84/2003 is in the following terms:-'11. That there is a delay of 436 days in initial filing and 3 years and 22 days in refiling the appeal, however, it is respectfully reiterated that the same is neither intentional nor deliberate.'The initial delay in filing is attributed to the file process...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT20; 2005(82)DRJ710
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The petitioner herein was working as P.G.T. (Chemistry) with the respondent No. 1 since July, 1976. An advertisement was issued by the respondent sometime in the month of June, 1986 calling for applications for filling up certain vacancies in the post of Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (in short `KVS') against Direct Recruitment Quota. The petitioner also submitted an application as against the aforesaid advertisement praying for considering his case for such appointment to the post of principal-KVS against the Direct Recruitment quota. The petitioner was called for the interview for the purpose, wherein he appeared and he was interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted especially for the aforesaid purpose.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was selected in the said selection by the said Committee, he was not appointed as against one of the aforesaid vacant posts of Principal-KVS, due to the bias on the part of the respondent....
Tag this Judgment!Jawaharlal Nehru University, Through Its Registrar Vs. the Consumers D ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT586; 2005(82)DRJ552
Vijender Jain, J.1. No body is present on behalf of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Jawaharlal Nehru University is not a commercial shop and will not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. Even otherwise, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is bound by the decision rendered by the National Commission. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Registrar University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat Bombay 1994(1) CPJ 146 (NC) and Joint Secretary Gujarat Secondary Education Board v. Bharat Narottam Thakkar 1994(1) CPJ 187 (NC) that the university while valuating the answer books of a candidate who has appeared for the examination or conducting any examination is not performing a 'service which had been hired or availed of for consideration and that no consumer dispute can, thereforee, be said to have arisen, if the revaluation has not been done properly. In the instant case it has been contended that as the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rachna JaIn Vs. Shri Neeraj Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT365; II(2006)DMC410
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. Since the respondent did not appear after service and publication, the matter has already been proceeded ex parte against the respondent.2.This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by Additional District Judge who declined to modify and rectify the order dated 1.10.2003 and for passing decree of divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').3. In a troubled marriage there were pending criminal matters and divorce proceedings. Eventually divorce by mutual consent and settlement of all criminal and civil disputes was agreed to by both the spouses resulting inter alias in the wife withdrawing her criminal complaints and dropping all claims towards maintenance for herself and her daughter. The husband enjoyed all the benefits of the settlement and then remarried and has a child from the second marriage and yet withdrew his consent for divorce by mutual co...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu and Etc. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 133(2006)DLT290
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my learned brother R. S. Sodhi, J., by which the appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2000 and 21st September, 2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 102/ 97, arising out of FIR No. 480/95, Police Station, Ambedkar Nagar, are sought to be dismissed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 364-A and 368, IPC and sentenced appellants Harnam Singh, Pappu and Vijender to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months each.2. For the reasons and appreciation of evidence, as given hereinafter in the judgment, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt of kidnapping being for payment of ransom, so as to fall within Section 364-A, IPC. However, I find that the prosecution has proved the case for offence under S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sona Casting Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT193TriDel
1. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. They have requested to decide the case on merits.2. In this appeal the Revenue has not contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal, on merits vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit and dropped the duty demand on imported melting scrap used by the respondents in the manufacture of final product, after receipt of the same from Punjab State Warehousing Corpn., the custodian of the imported goods, on the ground that the end-use certificate, had been submitted by the respondents and whatever quantity of goods they received from the above said Corpn., they utilised the same. The correctness of the order has been questioned only on the ground of jurisdiction by contending the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) was taken away vide Notification No.78/2002-Cus., dated 5-12-2002. But this contention/ground of the Revenue cannot be accepted. The above said notification was issued only when the appeal wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC349
1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is as to whether interest on delayed payment of interest is permissible under the provisions of Central Excise Act or not. This reference has arisen on account of the apex court judgment in CE Hyderabad v. ITC Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) ELT 15 and by the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Motors v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 2003 (56) RLT 192. None has come present on behalf of the appellants before us. However, the ld. counsel has assisted the Bench. We have heard the ld. SDR and the counsel.2. In CE Hyderabad v. ITC Ltd. (supra), there was delayed refund of pre-deposit and interest at the rate more than 12% was allowed by the Tribunal. The apex Court after referring and making the draft circular submitted by the Revenue regarding payment of interest, as part of the order, upheld the payment of interest to the assessee on delayed payment of pre-deposit, but reduced the interest to 12%. In that case, payment of interest on interest to the asses...
Tag this Judgment!