Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Pee Jay International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC472

1. In all these stay applications the appellants' appeals have been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that he has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeals in respect of the orders passed by the Adjudicating authority at Amritsar. All these 3 appeals are taken together as the issue involved is same and disposed of by one order.2. Learned Advocate points out that in an identical issue and in respect of the same notification the Division Bench in its Order No.71/06-Cus., dated 3-2-2006 2006 (196) E.L.T. 150 (Tribunal) has remanded the matter back to the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. He produced the Order. Learned D.R. submits that the issue decided by the Division Bench is of identical nature.3. Perused the records. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that he does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter arising out of orders of the Adjudicating Authority at Amritsar. I find that the Division Bench in its above re...

Nahar Sugar and Allied Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 28-4-2005 wherein Heavy Melting Scrap was confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed on the appellants.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that the appellants imported the Heavy Melting Scrap from Sudan vide Bill of Lading dated 4-10-2004. The said consignment was inspected on 100% physical examination basis by the authorities as per the Circular No. 56/2004, dated 18-10-2004 of Ministry of Finance and found that the consignment did not have any arms and ammunition or explosive material mixed with the goods. Despite this clear cut findings, the goods were confiscated and penalty imposed. For confiscation and imposing the penalty, the adjudicating authority relied upon the amended provisions of Para 2.32 of Hand Book of Procedures of Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09. This amendment to Para 2.32 was brought into force from...

Chambal Fertilisers and Vs. Commr. of Cus. (imp.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts in brief are that the appellants had imported goods falling under Custom Tariff Heading No. 98.01 at Nil rate of duty for initial setting up of plant for manufacture of Urea. They also imported Crane of 120 MT capacity along with project. At the time of clearance of goods from customs, crane was held as chargeable to duty under Tariff Heading 8426.41 and duty of Rs. 1,63,69,482/- was assessed. The appellants agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1 crore and paid the same. Thereafter, charge-ability of duty on the crane was contested and finally the Tribunal in its Order No. 136/03-B, dated 20.12.2002 allowed the appeal of the appellants with consequential relief including refund of the amount paid as duty towards the demand.Appellants accordingly filed refund for Rs. 1 crore for the duty paid by them on the disputed assessment of crane which was sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority. Revenue filed the appeal against this order of sanction of refund before the Commissi...

Pandit Motor Service Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Applicants filed this application for waiver of predeposit of service tax and penalties. In this case, the demand was confirmed by treating the applicant as tour operator as provided under Section 96 of the Service Tax.2. The contention of the applicants is that they are stage carnage operator. Another contention is that there are some tourist operators who engaged their bus to transport the passengers. Applicants cannot be treated as tour operator as they are only getting the balance amount after tour operators deduct their commission.3. We have gone through the scope of tour operator as defined under Section 96 of the Service Tax which provides that "any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The applicants had already a permit granted by the competent authority as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Applicants contention is that applicants are operating as stage carriage and...

Sh. Ravi Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT304; 2006(88)DRJ200

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This judgment decides WP(Crl.).No.647/1993, filed by Ravi Sharma and WP(Crl.).648/1993, filed by his wife Sarika Sharma. Petitioner/Ravi Sharma questions the validity of detention order dated 7th July, 1968 passed under Section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short PIT NDPS Act). Notice dated 11th March, 1993 issued under Section 68(h)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act) is also assailed. A restraint on the respondents is also sought from taking any steps pursuant to the detention order and the above notice under Section 68(h)(1) of the NDPS Act. 2. Sarika Sharma in her petition seeks quashing of the detention order passed against her husband Ravi Sharma, as also the notice under Section 68(h)(1) of the NDPS Act issued to her. 3. The relevant facts for disposal of the present petitions, may be noted:(i)One Mrs. Amar Song was arrested on 22nd August, 1987, whil...

Shri V.V. Gaupta Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC501; 2006(1)CTLJ444(Del); 129(2006)DLT77; 2006(88)DRJ168

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 & 2 submits that this application can be taken up for disposal straightway and there is no necessity for filing a reply. The defendant No. 3 is the bank which had extended the bank guarantee in question.2. The counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that earlier, this court had, by an order dated 01.03.2006, disposed of is Nos. 9251/2005 and is No. 2458/2006 on the ground that those applications, which were applications where an injunction in respect of the same bank guarantee had been sought, were premature inasmuch as there had been no invocation of the bank guarantee by the defendants 1 and 2. He further pointed out that now an invocation letter has been issued by the defendants 1 and 2 on 01.03.2006 itself. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this invocation letter is not in terms of the bank guarantee and, thereforee, he is entitled to an injunction against the defendants from any payments being made c...

G. Block Residents Welfare Association and anr. Vs. O.P. Wadhwa and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT311; 2006(88)DRJ86

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the respondents not to obstruct the petitioners to build up their driveway/boundary wall as per the sanctioned plan of the property over the land allotted to them by lease deed dated 26.5.1971. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from making any construction on the strip of land measuring 22.6 ft. x 120 ft. in width on the eastern side of the petitioner's house. Petitioner also prayed for a direction for demarcation of the property as per the lease deed and the sanctioned plan of the petitioner.3. The facts of the case are that the Land and Development Officer (L. & D.O.) had leased out a plot of land having demarcation admeasuring 1067 sq. yards situated at Plot No. DD-13 in Kalkaji Rehabilitat...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. Vs. Tata Engineering % Locomot ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT300

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.11.2003 in WP(C) No. 21/2003. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, hence, we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The writ petition was filed against the impugned assessment order dated 17.9.2002 vide Annexure P-16 to the writ petition. 5. It may be mentioned that against the aforesaid assessment order there is a right of appeal provided for under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act').6. It is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained. No doubt, an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the entertaining of a writ petition, but since writ is a discretionary remedy, a writ petition is ordinarily not entertain...

State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Sri Ram @ Thakedar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT81

Manju Goel, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of acquittal passed by Shri P.S. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge on 24th August, 1985 in S.C. No.44/84 arising from FIR No.384/82 of Police Station Ashok Vihar. The accused/respondent Sri Ram @ Thakedar s/o Ranjit Singh was challaned for the offence of murdering one Jit Singh s/o Kushal Singh. On 23rd August, 1982, Jit Singh, hereinafter referred to as the `deceased', was brought to the Hindu Rao Hospital in an injured condition. On the statement of Harish Chander who had brought the injured to the hospital, the FIR was registered.2. As per the statement, the respondent had built a KHOKHA on the land of the relative of the deceased which the deceased discovered on his return from his native place on 20th August, 1982 and on being challenged by the deceased there was a verbal wrangle. Referring to the incident of 23rd August, 1982, Harish Chander stated that as the deceased asked the accused to remove his KHOKHA at 6.30 p.m., the resp...

Parmeshwari Bai Vs. Raj Narayan Dahiya

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT84; 2006(89)DRJ296

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 215/2001 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 19.03.2001 of theAddl. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in R.C.A. No. 6/2001 whereby the Tribunal, while adjudicating on an appeal from the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30.11.2000 dismissing the petition under Section 14(1)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') and passing an eviction order under Section 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(h) of the Act, partly allowed the appeal upholding the order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and setting aside the order of the Controller under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been narrated by the Additional Rent Controller, are as follows:This eviction petition relates to one room on the ground floor of property No. 63401/2/Part-2, Ward No. XII, Block-A, House No. 1-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-7, with common use of latrine and bath room on ground floor itself which petitioner has filed against the p...