Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC272

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27-12-2004 wherein the appellant's appeal against refund claim was rejected.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants imported a consignment of goods namely facsimile, cartridges, etc. and filed Bill of Entry for its clearance. They also filed invoices of Canon Singapore PTE Ltd., value of which was in dollars. At the time of clearance, through over sight exchange rate was declared as Euro/Dollars. This error was manifested and Bill of Entry was assessed and duty was paid which lead to excess payment of duty Rs. 6,66,468/-. On realising this error of excess payment of duty the appellants filed refund claim with the lower authorities. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants have not challenged the assessment of the Bill of Entry, and hence, filing of refund claim would not arise. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also held the same and dismisse...

Big Byte Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s Big Byte Corporation filed Bill of Entry No. 1784 dated 10-9-1999 for import of 1300 pieces of VGA Cards imported from M/s.A.S.K. Technology Ltd. Hong Kong unfer invoice No. 99424/NV dated 23-7-99. Thg value of the VGA cards was declared at 4.5 US$ (Rs. 196.65) per piece. On examination of goofs iv was found that these goods were imported first time at Air Cargo Complex, Jaipur and its value as declared cannot immediately be ascertained hence, the goods were cleared provisionally to ascertain the correct assessable value of the goods. Information was obtained from Directorate of Valuation, Mumbai who informed that similar goods were imported by M/s. Western India Packagings, Raigad at Sahar Airport from the same supplier M/s.S.K. Technology Ltd. under Bill of Entry No. 854450 dated 4-6-1999 @ Rs. 511/- per piece. Thus, it appears that the value declared by M/s Big Byte Corporation was not correct and they have grossly undervalued the goods to evade Custom duty. Therefore, the s...

Commodore F.H. Dubash Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT471; 2006(87)DRJ354; [2007]1SCL273(Delhi); 2007(1)SLJ273(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner, a senior Naval Officer of the Indian Navy has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the recommendation of the Promotion Board No. 1/2004 dated 18th June, 2004 as according to him he was wrongfully denied promotion to the next higher rank of Rear Admiral of Indian Navy for which he was fully qualified. The respondents acted arbitrarily and contrary to the Government's directive dated 25th August, 2000 while calculating the vacancies available and wrongly denied promotion to the petitioner to the post of Rear Admiral even though he was ranked second in merit. A proper calculation according to the said guideline showed that the two vacancies were available which proper calculation as per the aforesaid binding guideline would have ensured the promotion to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of defense and the respondent No. 2 is the Chief of Naval Staff....

Mr. S.K. Sikka and anr. Vs. Hindustan Papers Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ478

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The suit has been filed for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1987 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Srirangpatnam, confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka in appeal RFA No.673/1987 dated 15.8.1987 be decreed to be ineffective and non-executable as having been obtained by fraud perpetuated by defendant No.2 and in collusion with defendant No.3. 2. The plaintiff No.1 is the sole proprietor of plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.1 is the public sector undertaking and defendant No.2 is the subsidiary of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is stated to have gone into liquidation.3. The subject matter of the suit is stated to be a commercial transaction for purchase of certain equipment entered into between defendant No.2 in 1978 and at M/s Sutherland (Equipment and Processes) Limited to United Kingdom which entity is stated to have been dissolved in July, 1991. The purchase order dated 25.7.1978 was placed by defendant No.2 on M/s Sutherland and defe...

Poorvanchal Caterers and anr. Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)CTLJ175(Del); 128(2006)DLT481

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-I) That the respondent be directed to open the 'Packet-B' containing financial bids submitted by the petitioner for the trains 1015-1016 and 2137-2138 Along with other bidders and any deviation on the part of the IRCTC be declared void and non est;II) That the action of the IRCTC in not declaring the petitioner technically qualified for the trains 1015-1016 and 2137-2138 being arbitrary, unreasonable and uncalled for, be declared unconstitutional and void;III) That the respondent IRCTC be restrained from acting/doing anything prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner;IV) Pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in accordance with law.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business of mobile or static catering in the Railway and other Government or public/private undertaking in the name and style of M/s Poorvanchal Caterers having its head office at Gorakhpur an...

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Workman of the Erstwhile Delhi Water Supply and Se ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT722; 2006(87)DRJ536; (2006)IIILLJ144Del

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2002 by which the writ petition was dismissed.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petitioner, the Delhi Jal Board had filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 27.11.1999. By that award the Tribunal directed regularisation of the concerned workmen i.e. Sh. Mahabir Singh, Sh. Amarjit Singh, Sh. Ganga Shahi, Sh. Panna Lal, Sh. Abdul Wahid and Sh. Jitender Singh as Pump Operators in the regular pay-scale and allowances. The management was directed to determine the date of the regularisation and make payment of arrears of salary and allowances with other benefits.4. The writ petitioner, the Delhi Jal Board was constituted under the provisions of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998 and was statutorily vested with the powers and functions in relation to water and sewerage. Prior to it...

Oriental Manufacturing Co. Vs. the Special Director, Enforcement Direc ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT573; 2006(87)DRJ581

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Till date more than twenty Writ Petitions have been filed against Orders passed by Shri O.P.Nahar, Chairperson, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. In several Orders of this Court it had been pointed out that the Tribunal must address and answer two questions. Firstly, the existence or absence of a prima facie case. Secondly, undue financial hardship if penalty is not to be exempted. As far back as in November, 2005 I had requested the Additional Solicitor General to look into the matter as valuable Court time is being taken up because of passing of Orders which do not comply with the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Time and again it has to be pointed out that compliance in Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk P.U. Ltd. vs . Union of India, : 2003(154)ELT347(SC) has to be made. Petitions have been disposed of in the past by remanding them for fresh consideration so that the reasons which have prevailed on the Tribunal to refuse or grant exemption are clear...

Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC452

1. These four appeals are directed against the order-in-appeal dt.13.11.03 wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has disposed of four orders-in-original denying Modvat credit on the items.2. The relevant facts for consideration are that the appellants took Modvat credit on (1) Steel Casting (2) Items used for Hot Pump circulation (3) I.D.Fan (4) Check Valve (5) Paris of generating sets (6) Alarm Annunciation (7) Tyre building drums (8) Switching lever. A SCN was issued to the appellants denying the Modvat credit on these items on the ground that all these items arc not covered under the definition of capital goods. The appellants contested the SCNs and adjudicating authority confirmed the demands in respect of all the above items. The appellate authority has also held that the appellants are not eligible for Modvat credit on the above said items as they are not covered under Rule 57Q i.e. under the definition of capital goods.Hence this appeal.3. Ld. Representative appearing for the appel...

Cce Vs. Himachal Exicom Communication

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 16.12.2003 wherein the learned Commissioner has allowed the credit of Modvat to the respondent.2. The issue involved in this case is that the respondents imported some goods and availed Modvat credit in respect of the Bill of Entry in their RG 23 A Part-II on 17.2.96, which according to the Department is beyond the specified limit by one day and hence the respondents are ineligible for availing the Modvat credit.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that the respondents imported the inputs against Bill of Entry No. 910236 dated 11.8.95 and availed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,72,753/- and due to some problems, availed the balance credit of Rs. 1,57,922/- on 17.2.96. The department's contention in this case is that the date on which the respondents availed the credit i.e. 17.2.96 is beyond the period of six months, as provided in the law for availment of credit, It was contende...

Dewan Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the stay applications are called out, Id. Advocate for the applicants pointed out that the amount involved in these two stay applications is Rs. 34,620/- and Rs. 1,62,050/- and equivalent amount of penalty. He points out that the applicants are declared as a sick company under BIFR.2. Considered the submission made by both the sides. Ld. Advocate's contention that since the company is declared as sick unit could not be a reason for granting waiver of the demand of penalty. On query from the Bench, ld. Advocate produces balance sheet for the year ended June, 05 which shows a net loss of Rs. 57.10 crores to the appellants. The loss incurred for the year ending 30.6.2005 is 1.46 crores. Since the company is in deep financial crisis, I grant waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty involved in this case and stay the recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal....