Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Khan Khadi Woollen Furnisher Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the applicant.The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty. In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 30/81-C.E. dated 1-3-81 was denied on the ground that the land on which the factory is situated belongs to the members of the Society and not to applicant, hence factory is not owned by the applicant and therefore, is not entitled for the benefit of Notification.2. We find that revenue is not disputing the land in question and on which the factory is erected belongs to the members of Co-operative Society and the same co-operative society is running the factory. The applicant has a strong prima facie case, therefore, pre-deposit of duty is waived for hearing the appeals. Stay petitions are allowed....

Ashiq Ali 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 28.2.2005 whereby the vehicle used as conveyance was confiscated and penalties were imposed on the owners of the vehicle.2. The brief facts of the case are that the customs authorities were handed over a Tata sumo which had third country origin goods along with four persons including the driver. On investigation it was found that the contraband was consisting of small transistor and battery cells of foreign origin. Authorities after a detailed investigation issued show cause notice to all concerned and the adjudicating authority confiscated the contraband goods, vehicle and imposed penalties on all the notice. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal),.against the confiscation of the vehicle and penalties imposed on them. The said appeal was rejected, hence this appeal.3. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. I find from the records that the no body claimed the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Surya Ceramics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the respondents are manufacturers of ceramic glazed tiles located in Gujarat. They were central excise assessees and were clearing the said tiles on payment of duty. However, investigations led to allegation that the respondents were undervaluing ceramic tiles cleared by them and that way evaded duty. In the case of Fine Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. there was also allegation that certain quantities of tiles were clandestinely removed without payment of duty. The period involved is 1996-98. Accordingly, Show-cause Notices were issued proposing recovery of short-levy and imposition of penalties on the respondents.2. In adjudication, Commissioner confirmed the duty demands at much lesser amounts than proposed in the Show-cause Notices. Imposed much lower penalties too. Revenue is in appeal against those orders.3. The submission of the learned SDR is that the quantifications of duty evasion made by the Commissioner are grossly incorrect as he had adopted an erroneous approach in evaluating ...

Shalimar Ispat Udyog Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC501

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of steel bars through hot re-rolling process. From September 1997, Annual Capacity of Production based central excise duty was imposed on such re-rollers.2. Under that scheme, one factor relevant for determining the annual capacity of production of a unit is the distance of the pinions in the pinion stand.3. Central Excise authorities took 210 mm as the 'distance' and determined the annual capacity of production of the appellant's unit for the year 1997-98 onwards.4. The appellant sought revision of the capacity of production on the ground that pinion distance was 185 mm and not 210 mm. It was submitted that the distance had been brought down in April 1997.5. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner found that the reduction was to 195 mm and not 185 mm. Based on the reduced distance, the annual capacity of production was arrived at 3613 MT. But central excise duty was not fixed on the basis of the capacity of production so arrived at.Instead, the C...

M.P. Dixit Vs. Lt. Governor Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ743

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction to the respondents, to fix his pay scale in accordance with the CCS (Revised Pay Scale) Rules and grant him the benefit of enhancement or revised pay scale, from the date they became applicable.2. The petitioner appeared and argued in support of his proceedings himself.3. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Principal of the Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Kiran Vihar. He alleges that on 20.12.1995 an FIR was lodged naming him and six other relatives due to death of his daughter in law, within seven years of marriage. The petitioner was arrested on 21.12.1995. He remained in custody till he was admitted to bail on 26.3.1996. It is claimed that he reported to duty 27.3.1996. On 11.4.1996, an order was issued by the respondent placing the petitioner under deemed suspension w.e.f. 21.12.1995. It is claimed that the petitioner had sought for revocation at suspension...

Suman Sehgal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi216; [2007]138CompCas988(Delhi); (2006)203CTR(Del)129; 2006(88)DRJ721; [2007]73SCL286(Delhi)

ORDER FOR IMPUNDING OF PASSPORTS UNDER SECTION 37 OF FEMA, 1999 READ WITH SECTION 131(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961Consequent to the Volcker Committee Report on Oil-For-Food Programme of the United Nations in Iraq, investigations have been initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999. During the course of investigation, passports of the following persons were summoned by the Directorate, as detailed below, for the purposes of investigation:SL.No. PASSPORT No. NAME OF THE HOLDER1. Z 1378210 and cancelled Shri Suman Sehgal passport No. B 50798662. Z 1378677 Shri Zamil Ajmal Saidi3. E 1927688 Shri Vijay Dhar4. Z 1175514 Shri Mohammad Asad Khan5. D 1106465 and cancelled Kanwar Jagat Singh passport No. B 5151256The investigations in the matter are at a very crucial stage and the Directorate is in the process of collection of evidence and recording of statements for which these persons are required in the country. There...

Poysha Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Com ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC643(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of is Nos. 6318/2005 and 1644/2006 in Suit No. 1140/2005 and is No. 7080/2005 in Suit 1276/2005.2. Suit No. 1140/2005 is filed by Poysha Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. (Poysha) and the two Defendants therein are Doctor Morepen Limited (Dr. Morepen) and Kare Labs Pvt. Limited (Kare).2.1 The prayer in the plaint is for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants (Dr. Morepen and Kare) from infringing the trademark BURNOL assigned by Dr. Morepen to Poysha and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs with interest thereon towards royalty and fee payable by Dr. Morepen to Poysha for permitted use of the trademark BURNOL for the period from 19th April, 2004 to 30th April, 2005.2.2 is Nos. 6318/2005 and 1644/2006 were filed by Poysha under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an injunction restraining both the Defendants (Dr. Morepen and Kare) and those acting on their behalf from infringing the registered trademark BURNOL bearing regis...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sushma Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ714

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB was issued in the writ petition on 19th February, 2003. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the judgment dated 25th April, 2001 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT') in OA No. 1381/2000 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed and the petitioner's action in not according her consideration to the post Addl. Secretary in the Ministry of Law was struck down. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents of not considering the respondent for the appointment to the post of Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Law, an OA was filed by the respondent before the CAT. The main plea of the respondent is that she was a Member of Indian Legal Services and she should have been considered for the above post. The petitioner Union of India's case is that since the respondent herein was merely a deputationist, she did not have ...

Purna Nand Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR401(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT493

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of petitioner's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of disputes which have arisen with the respondent..2. The petitioner contended that he is a proprietor of the firm M/s. Purna Nand and he was awarded a work by the Executive Engineer Br. IV by work order No.EE (BR-IV)/TC/2001-2002/504 dated 7th January, 2002 to construct Chest Clinic and Health Centre cum Maternity Centre at Sector VII, Rohini on payment of agreed contractual amount of Rs. 1,44,18,107/-.3. An agreement was executed between the parties which contained Clause 25 having an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement in Clause 25 between the parties is as under:-Clause 25Settlement of Disputes and ArbitrationExcept where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specification, design, drawings and instructions here-in-before mentioned and as to...

Navendra Kumar Vs. M.T.N.L

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)SLJ304(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent of the counsel for parties, these petitions were heard finally.2. There is one writ petitioner common to all these proceedings. He impugns the decision of the respondent the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'MTNL') to initiate departmental proceedings under MTNL(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1998 Rules')3. The facts pertaining to these case are not in controversy. The petitioner joined the services of the Indian Post and Telegraph Department in the year 1967. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Group B). With the bifurcation of the department, the petitioner was sent to the Department of Telecommunications. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to MTNL. For a brief while he worked with the Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., a Central Government Organization.4. While he was employed in the D.O.T, petitioner was promoted to the post of Divisiona...