Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sona Casting (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals are directed against the Order in appeal dated 25.2.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the respondents in respect of two orders in original which demanded duty, interest, confiscation of goods and imposed redemption fine and personal penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant imported heavy melting scrap and filed two bills of entry availing the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus dated 1.3.1997 cleared the goods on the basis of assessed amount of duty. The said notification requires an undertaking to be given by the respondents for consumption/end use of the heavy melting scrap as per the provision of the notification.The respondents filed end use certificate for the consumption of heavy melting scrap in their factory for a quantity of 203.950 MT and 109.055 MT. The department issued a show cause notice demanding duty on the differential quantity of the heavy melting scrap which was not consumed ...

Allianz Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order in appeal dated 14.3.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order in original, which dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant.2. The brief facts that arise for consideration are the appellant imported 488 leather jackets for repairs and re-exported under Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. The said goods were cleared duty free by the customs authority on 29.4.2003 as per provisions of Notification No. 158/95. The appellant re-exported 255 pieces within the period of six months as provided under the notification and balance 233 pieces was re-exported by them subsequently, beyond the period of six months. The appellants were issued show cause notice dated 25.6.2004 directing them to show cause why the customs duty and interest applicable on the goods (imported by them by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus) be not demanded from them for non-fulfillment of condition of the notificatio...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashu Cables Groups

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the Commissioner Appeals waived the penalty imposed under Sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act.3. We have gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner Appeals held that the demand for differential service tax does not survive. In view of the evidence on record and also waived imposition of penalties. We find as the show cause notice was issued to the respondents for demanding differential amount of service tax, which was dropped, by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Revenue is not questioning that portion of the impugned order, therefore, the question of imposition of penalty does not survive. The appeal is dismissed....

Anil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of the present OA, the applicants have sought for quashing the orders dated 26.10.2005 and 20.12.2005 whereby they have been repatriated to their parental cadre, i.e. from Parcel cadre to Booking cadre. They also sought a direction to pass an order directing the respondents to obtain the option from the Coaching Clerks transferred from Bikaner Division to Delhi Division for their posting either in parcel cadre or booking cadre.3. By way of an interim order dated 20.1.2006, status quo has been maintained by the respondents till date.4. Learned Counsel for applicant states that despite the Union was consented in tripartite agreement of merger of three cadres and thereafter on divisionalization of Railways, transfer and posting of each category on 'as is where is basis', yet one of the signatories of the Union, to which the applicants belong to, had strictly object to this decision on the ground that the factual position with regard to applicants' request having been accepte...

State (Cbi) Vs. Ranjeet Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT192; 2006(87)DRJ679

R.C. Jain, J.1. This reference arises out of a communication No.52254 dated 9.12.1999 sent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi requesting for grant of sanction of this Court under Section 308 Cr.P.C. for trial of accused Ranjeet Singh for the offence under Section 193 IPC in case State (CBI) v. Ranjeet Singh, Sessions Case No.745/96, R.C.No.17(S)/93/SPL.CBI Distt. Delhi.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the reference are that a case R.C.No. 17(S)/93/SPL.CBI/93-Delhi was registered with the Special Crime Branch, New Delhi on 16.9.1993 pursuant to directions issued by this Court on 1.9.1993 in WP(Crl.)304/1993 and investigation of case FIR 226/1993 under Section 365 IPC, police station Vinay Nagar was taken over by the CBI. During the course of investigation one of the accused-Ranjeet Singh was arrested on 20.4.1994 from Village Satora Pehwa, Distt.Kurukshetra, Haryana and after expiry of his police remand he was remanded to judicial custody on 30.4.1994. After some time, accused ...

Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Shri Jai Kishan Bansal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT616; 2006(89)DRJ20

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the defendant under Order 37 Rule 4 seeking the setting aside of the decree passed on 29.07.2004 claiming that there are special circumstances in favor of the defendant/applicant for seeking the setting aside of the decree.2. The background of the present application is that on 08.09.2003, the plaintiff instituted the present suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 based upon a dishonoured cheque. The summons were not being served on the defendant in the ordinary way and, thereforee, on 26.04.2004, substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 was directed to be effected by publication in 'The Statesman' (New Delhi Edition) as also by affixation at the last known address of the defendant and also by affixation on the notice board of the court. On 14.07.2004, the Joint Registrar recorded that the defendant had been served with summons for appearance in the proforma prescribed under Order 37 Rule 2 (2), CPC b...

Paramjit Singh Sarna, Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Committee and anr. Vs. Avtar ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT575

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these Letters Patent Appeals are taken up for final hearing. 2. These LPAs arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd January, 2006 by virtue of which elections to the posts of office bearers and members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DSGMC') were countermanded and fresh elections were ordered to be held on 14th February, 2006. 3. The facts of the case as per the appellants are:-(a) On 28th November, 2005, the General Secretary of the DSGMC, Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, the respondent No. 2 in this appeal, issued a letter informing the members that a meeting of the General House of DSGMC would be held on 19th December, 2005 for the purpose of convening elections. The President of the DGSMC Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, the appellant herein, was not in India when the letter dated 28th November, 2005 was issued by the Secretary of ...

Silver Stone Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manju Tandon

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 21.12.2005, the appellant has been directed to refund the excess amount of Rs. 60,000 received by it towards the value of the car Skoda make and Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and Rs. 2,500 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Admittedly the invoice issued by the appellant shows the total value of the car as Rs. 10,42,658 whereas the respondent alleges to have paid Rs. 11,02,700 details of which was provided by him in para 3 of the complaint. According to the respondent, she had paid cash amount of Rs. 1,50,000 whereas the appellant states that the cash paid was only Rs. 1 lac. While explaining the value of the car shown in the invoice and the actual payment received by the appellant as per its own version. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that this amount was charged on account of in...