Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Smt. Sudershan K. Chopra Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT468; 2006(87)DRJ257

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed by the sole legatee in respect of a will dated 23.04.1992 left by Late Brigadier (Dr) K.C. Chopra. In this application, the petitioner has prayed that she may be exempted from filing the Security Bond or, in the alternative, the Security Bond may be ordered to be furnished for a nominal sum.2. The probate proceedings culminated in the order of this court dated 30.09.2005 whereby probate was granted in favor of the petitioner in respect of the said will of her husband, Late Brigadier (Dr) K.C. Chopra. Under the said will dated 23.04.1992, the petitioner is the sole legatee and all the movable and immovable properties of the testator have been left to the petitioner. The probate proceedings were not contested and consequently the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2005 was passed by this court. 3. The petitioner has already filed the court fee stamps of Rs. 1,20,920/- and is hereby seeking exemption from filing the Security Bond or, in the a...

Sh. D.C. Kapur Vs. Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR486(Delhi); 130(2006)DLT94

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 126/1996 (under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner-contractor was awarded the work of construction of houses and scooter garages under the SFS Scheme. The disputes arose between the parties and in terms of Clause 25, the Arbitration clause, the Engineer Member of DDA had appointed Shri. K.K. Reddy, Chief Engineer (Vigilance) as the Sole Arbitrator as per letter dated 25.9.1989. The Arbitrator resigned and subsequently Shri K.S. Gangadhar was appointed the Arbitrator in his place. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 17.3.1995.2. The respondent aggrieved by the same have filed the present objections.3. A perusal of the ground set out in the objection petition show that the respondent is under a mistaken belief that the present proceedings are in the nature of Regular First Appeal where matters of evidence need to be re-examined and reappreciated. In my considered view this is not the scope of enquiry in respect of the...

Sapient Corporation Private Limited Vs. Mr. Amit Govil

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2073; 128(2006)DLT283; 2006(87)DRJ562

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. has filed this petition for initiating proceedings against the respondent contemnor under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The petitioner claims that the respondent-contemnor had instituted a suit bearing Suit No. 1664/2003 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi challenging his termination as Managing Director on the basis of termination letter dated 30.7.2003. The respondent in the said suit, apart from challenging the termination, inter alias claimed compensation of Rs. 7.59 crores. Respondent had also moved applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. However, no interim relief was granted in the said proceedings.2. Respondent/Contemnor filed a subsequent suit bearing No. 92/2004 in March, 2004 in the District Courts being a suit for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration tha...

Continental Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC428

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 24.12.2005, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order in original granting the interest to the appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are : Appellants imported waste oil and classified the same under Heading No. 28.23 of CTA. The said classification was not accepted by the Assistant Collector and he classified the same under 3403 of CTA and directed the appellants to pay appropriate duty and CVD. On appeal from this order in original the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said adjudication order. The appellants preferred a stay application and appeal against the said order in appeal to the Tribunal. Tribunal while disposing the stay application directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 22,30,000/- which was complied by the appellants. The appellant's appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide Order No. 56-57/2000-C dated 21.1.2000, On succeeding in the appeal the appellants preferred a refund claim for t...

Textile Bearing (Kci) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC14

1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute in this appeal is in regard to classification of various parts and components of ball bearings such as needles rollers, aluminium cages, inner and outer races, inner and outer rings, lay shaft bushes of different dimensions. There is no dispute that these are parts of ball bearings. Appellant claimed classification under heading 84.85 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered "machinery parts, not containing electrical connectors, insulators, coils contacts or other electrical features not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter". The revenue claimed classification under heading 84.82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act which covers "Ball or roller bearings".2. The contention of the learned Counsel is that heading 84.82 covers ball or roller bearings and parts are no specified there and therefore, they are classifiable under the residual entry 8485.90 wh...

Shri Rajesh Agarwal and Mool Chand Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against the order-in-appeal dated 19.7.2004 wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order-in-original, which imposes penalty and confiscates the truck and the goods.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant No. 2 in C/478/2005-NB (SM) dispatched brass scrap weighing 2555,5 Kg.and 3042.1 Kg. of zinc dross to a purchaser through vehicle No.MP20G/3364, which is owned by appellant No. 1 in appeal No.C/477/2005-NB (SM). The said vehicle was intercepted by the authorities and on opening the bags, it was found that the pieces of brass scrap bore markings/inscription in foreign language. The driver was asked to produce documents. He produced the invoices issued by appellant No. 2.Not satisfied with the documents, produced by the Driver, the authorities seized the goods and also seized the truck and issued show cause notice why the same should not be confiscated under the provisions of Sections 111(d) of the Customs Act...

Sumo Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 15 lakhs and penalty of the equal amount.2. The contention of the applicant is that M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and a demand of duty Rs. 15 lakhs and penalty of the equal amount were confirmed against M/s.Vaibhav Steels Ltd. Subsequently, M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. was acquired by the U.P. Financial Corporation. Thereafter, the U.P. Financial Corpn. sold the unit owned by M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. to the applicant vide Sale Deed dated 22-5-2003. It was specifically mentioned by the U.P. Financial Corporation that the unit is free from all charges or encumbrances. The contention of the applicant is that no doubt, prior to 2003 there was a provision under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules which provides for recovery of such amount from the purchaser of unit. When this unit was purchased by the applicant on 22-5-2003 no provision was in existence in the Central Exci...

Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This miscellaneous application is for rectification of mistake/recall/modification of the stay order No. 293/05 dated 11.4-2005, of the Tribunal in the applicant's case.2. The reasons for filing this miscellaneous application the applicant herein had preferred a stay application and an appeal against order in appeal No. 653-CE/APPL/KNP/04 dated 31.12.2004, and the same was numbered as E/Stay/553/2005 NB(B) in Appeal No. E/714/2005-NB(B) by the Registry. The stay application E/S/553/2005-NB(B) came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 11.4.2005. After hearing the Advocate and the SDRs, the Tribunal vide its order No. 293/05-B dated 11.4.2005 directed the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3.0 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) within 8 weeks, as a pre-deposit to hear the appeal. The compliance was to be reported on 28^th June 2005. The applicant herein aggrieved by the order moved a miscellaneous application on 14^th May 2005, for rectification of mistake/recall/modification in the...

C.C. (import and Gen.) Vs. Unicorn Medident Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC411

1. This appeal is by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A)/135/ACU/D-I/2005 dated 22.3.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original, vide which the refund claim of the respondents was set aside.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents herein imported Dental Micrometer. The Respondents cleared the goods after completing the formalities. Subsequently the respondents filed a refund claim of Rs. 94,842/- with the authorities on the ground that they had forgotten to claim the exemption of CVD under notification No. 10/2003(CE). The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide his letter dated 17.6.2003, directing the respondent to prefer an appeal against the finally assessed Bill of Entry. Aggrieved by the said order the respondents preferred an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and directed the adjudicating authority to decide the case on merits.Hence, this appeal by the d...

Sterling Machine Tools Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are in appeal against the order in appeal dated 31-12-2003 wherein the benefit of Modvat is denied.2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellant took Modvat credit on the basis of original copy of the invoice issued by the supplier, since the duplicate copy of the invoice meant for the transport carrier has been lost. The invoice was dated 31-7-1996. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants as to why the credit should not be denied to them. On Adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty on an appeal from the order-in-original. The appellate authority in its Order-in-appeal No. 19-CE/KNP/2000, remanded the matter, back to the adjudicating authority for verifying the duty paying nature from the originating range. The adjudicating authority in the second round of Adjudication has again confirmed the demand and appellate authority on an appeal upheld the order on the ground that the appellant was not able to...