Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Anand Electrostampings Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 57,41,760/- and penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The contention is that the duty was confirmed in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellants that are Half-Carline and Body Side Pillars. The contention is that in respect of the body side pillars, they are only undertaking the process of edge bending. The contention is that this process does not amount to manufacture. The appellant also submitted that they got these goods manufactured from their six job workers and produced the copies of Bills raised by the job workers. Therefore, the job workers are the manufacturer. The contention is that in spite of the job workers issued bills to the appellant before the Revenue authority, the job workers denied that they had undertaken the job work of the applicants. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority of cross-examination of the job workers but these job workers are not produced by the Reve...

Super Mix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants are contesting duty demand of Rs. 7,85,773/- made in the impugned order as well as penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The contention is that the appellant is only carrying out some incidental processes not amounting to manufacture and, therefore, is not liable to pay duty at all. The appellant is a manufacturer of Rubber Rolls on which it discharges Central Excise duty. It also carries out some job work for other manufacturer of Rubber Rolls. The duty demand is in regard to the job work so carried out. Therefore, the moot question is whether the processes in question bringing into existence new goods so as to make appellants a manufacturer of goods. The appellant received perforated steel sheets, which are cut to dimension for use in Rubber Rolls. The appellants bend those sheets into rounded shape and welded them. Sandblasting is also carried out. Sand-blasting is a process of cleaning by blowing sand at iron sheets at high pressure. The duty demand is under Heading 73.06 of the ...

Amar Enterprises Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 26,71,455/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lakh. The Revenue has already recovered the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of encashment of bank guarantee. The applicant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and also clearing the goods in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) during the period in dispute the goods cleared by DTA was assessed at the same price on which the goods were exported by the applicants.3. The contention of the applicant is that as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that in respect of the goods cleared to DTA 100% EOU, the value of the same is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the Custom Act as the goods are imported into India.The contention is that during the same period, the similar goods are being imported into India almost at the same price at which the applicant cleared to DTA. The contention is that though all evidences are not produced before the adjudication authority but the...

Xen Central Workshop Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,70,845/-. The applicants are manufacturing excisable goods for their captive use. The duty was calculated in terms of by adding 115% of the cost of manufacture. Applicants pleaded that they are under losses and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Complex Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut 2. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, Prima facie, applicants had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty is stayed for hearing of the appeal.The Stay Petition is allowed....

Sarwan Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ838; 130(2006)DLT188; II(2006)DMC233

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred against the judgment dated 27th November, 2000 passed in S.C.No.69/1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in case registered vide FIR No.429/1999, Police Station Nand Nagri. By an order of sentence of the same date, the Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 302 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant on 7th July, 1999, poured kerosene oil on his wife Rajni and set her on fire. The appellant got married to Rajni three months prior to the date of incident. Rajni sustained nearly 95% burns and was rushed to the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital by her mother-in-law. On admission, she was found unfit for statement. However, on 8th July, 1...

Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT494; 2006(86)DRJ666

R.S. Sodhi, J.CM293/20061. Sufficient cause has been shown. The matter is restored to its original number and file. Application is disposed of.C.M.(M) 2451/05 & C.M. 14439/052. CM(M)2451/2005 is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in S.No.33/02 whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 31.5.05 allowed the petition of the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. The facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional District Judge are -Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased one Tata Sumo vehicle from the respondent and had got financed vide Higher Purchase Contract No : 265904 dated 31.12.1998 for a sum of Rs. 3,80,206/- and executed a Hire Purchase Agreement. The petitioner had also paid a sum of Rs.1,16,561/- to the respondent in the shape of bank draft and the total cost of the said vehicle comes to Rs.4,06,583/-. As per the Hire Purchase Agreement, the required to pay the finance amount in 36 ...

Thomas Cook (India) Limited Vs. Hotel Imperial and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT431; 2006(88)DRJ545

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of is No.2061/2005 and is No. 4326/2005. The former application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') wherein the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. The second application (IA No.4326/2005) has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission of this Court for withdrawal of the statement made by the Senior Counsel for the defendants on 16.03.2005 before this Court. The other prayer made in this application is that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC (IA No. 2061/2005), be heard and disposed of. The statement made by the learned senior counsel on 16.03.2005 which the defendants seek to withdraw reads...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reetu Finlease (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Del)437; [2006]286ITR652(Delhi)

1. For the asst. yr. 1996-97, the assessed who was engaged in the business of leasing equipments claimed depreciation on Cyclonic Scubber Equipment and Electro Static Precipitator purchased from M/s Assam Solvex (P) Ltd., Assam, for a sum of Rs. 39,87,500. The AO conducted an inquiry to verify the genuineness of the alleged purchase and recorded a finding that the assessed had failed to establish the purchase of the machinery. He rejected the claim for depreciation made by the assessed on that finding. The assessed appealed to the CIT(A) against the said finding who upset the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) held the purchase of the machinery by the assessed from M/s Assam Solvex (P) Ltd., Assam, and Perfect Engineering (P) Ltd. to have been established. The CIT(A) further held that the machines had in fact been leased to M/s Sitapur Plywood . and installed in their plywood manufacturing unit which sufficiently established the use of the machine even by the lessee. On those two finding...

Prof. M.M. Agrawal Department of Sanskrit University of Delhi Vs. Vice ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT433; 2006(86)DRJ412

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant has preferred an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment and order dated 11th March, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition being WP (C) No. 3246 of 2002.2. The issue pertains to the seniority of the Appellant vis-a-vis Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The question of seniority is relevant for determining who is to become the Head of Department of Sanskrit in Delhi University.3. The Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were initially Readers in the Department of Sanskrit in the University. There is no dispute that the Appellant was then senior to both the Respondents in the grade of Reader.4. In 1983, the University Grants Commission announced a 'Merit Promotion Scheme' (for short MPS-1983) to remove the stagnation created in various cadres of several departments of the University. MPS-1983 envisaged time bound promotions to the post of Lecturers, Readers and Professors and was adopted and implemented by Delhi...

B.K. Kalra Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT372; (2006)IILLJ502Del

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. With the consent of learned counsel, the appeal is taken up for hearing today. The date of 18th January, 2006 is cancelled.2. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12th May, 2004. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.3. The appellant was working as Special Assistant in the Branch Office Rani Bagh, Delhi in the employment of the respondent/Punjab National Bank. He was served a charge-sheet dated 18th August, 1998 and an enquiry was conducted on the basis of that charge-sheet. The petitioner/appellant had an objection that the charges in the same were vague but it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that nevertheless the enquiry was concluded. Thereafter, another charge-sheet giving details was issued by the Bank dated 20th...