Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Rasheed Mohd. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT515; 2006(90)DRJ39

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of conviction of the appellant Under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Upon conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to 10 years of RI and Rs. 1 lakh fine. The petitioner has, pursuant to the said sentence, already undergone imprisonment for a period in excess of six years two months. The fine has not been paid. However, the default sentence is of simple imprisonment of one year.2. The appellant was found in possession of 1 k.g. of a substance said to contain diacetylmorphine. The court below had convicted the appellant for possession of the same. It had awarded the minimum sentence of 10 years in respect of a commercial quantity of heroin (diacetylmorphine). The small and commercial quantity specified by virtue of notification No. S.O. 1055 (E), dated 19th October, 2001 are 5 grams and 250 grams of diacetylmorphine respectively. If the r...

Dr. Ramjee Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT485; 2006(90)DRJ41

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent presses for the disposal of the Petition since interim Orders are in force.3. The Petitioner had previously filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1186/2006 challenging the appointment of an Administrator to the Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH) which was disposed of by the following Order dated 7.2.2006:There is no need to reflect upon the finding or efficacy of the Report of the Enquiry Commission, which admittedly has not been signed by all the Members. After hearing arguments in some detail, learned Counsel for the Respondent on instructions from Dr. Alok Kumar, Deputy Advisor, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoepathy(Ayush), states that elections shall be conducted in accordance with Section 7(1) of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 within a period of four weeks from today. He further states that the impugned Order dated 18-1-2006 shall not be acted upon in these circumstances. Prima fa...

Shri Jura Lugun Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT533; 2006(89)DRJ510

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner-Jura Lugun, an uneducated adivasi seeks a writ of habeas corpus against respondents for production of his daughter Kumari Somari stated to be illegally confined by respondents 4 and 5. Petitioner alleges that his daughter aged around 17 years had come to Delhi in January, 2001 for employment. She got employed as a domestic help with respondent No. 4.2. Petitioner alleges ill treatment of his daughter, rape of her person by respondent No. 4 resulting in impregnation and non payment of her salary. Petitioner alleges that his daughter was sent by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5 and his daughter in Allahabad. Petitioner avers that he is desirous of taking his daughter with him to his native village and of marrying her but she continues to be illegally detained by respondents 4 and 5.3. Notice was issued. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to investigate the matter and produce Somari on the next date. Respondents 4 and 5 were present along with Somari...

Parag Fan and Cooling Systems Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals raise A common dispute, whether the two units, Parag Fan & Cooling Systems Ltd. and Parag Industries are two separate manufacturers, entitled to seperate small scale exemption. The units had claimed exemption separately during the year, 1997-98. However, investigations showed that the units are one manufacturer and separate exemptions are not available. Based on that finding, demands have been made.2. We have perused the record and heard both sides. The impugned Order has given very detailed factual justification for treating both the units as of one manufacturer. There is no requirement to interfere with that finding. The appellants' units were not entitled to small scale exemptions as two manufacturers.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is glaring error in the computation of duty liability, inasmuch as exempted clearances made to IIT have also been taken into account while computing the duty liability. Learned Counsel has pointed out that...

Chittor Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the value of labels affixed on the bags should form part of the assessable value for cement bags. These labels were received by the appellant free of cost.2. The contention of the appellant is that labels in question are not essential for manufacture of the bags. It is being pointed out that in the absence of label also, the bags would be complete and usable.3. Above contention has no merit. It is well settled that all processes and materials going into the production of an excisable item, whether essential inputs or decorative, would form part of manufactured and value of all those items and processes have to be included in the assessable value. In this legal situation, demand of the Revenue is justified.4. The appellant has also a submission that this is not a case of suppression of facts. It is being contended that they were under bona fide belief that the price of the label is not to form part of the assessable value. Fact remai...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC268

1. Heard both the sides. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order challenging the imposition of penalty only. The amount of service tax along with interest has already been paid before issuance of show cause notice. It is admitted by the appellant that there is delay in depositing of service tax. The contention of the appellant is that there was some fault in the software of their computer, due to which service tax was not paid on the due dates. The contention is that as the service tax along with interest is paid prior to issuance of show cause notice, therefore, no penalty is imposable.The appellant relies upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Top Detective and Security Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R.443 (Tri.) : 2005 (180) E.L.T. 363 (Tri). The appellant also submitted that Revenue department on 23-9-2004 notified scheme known as extraordinary friendly scheme and under this scheme, if any service provider who got registered up to 30-10-04 are not lia...

M.K. Exim (i) Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding the enhancement of the value of the imported goods and alleged importing of the restricted second hand goods.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported eight Second hand Sulzer machines and filed bill of entry declaring them to be of less than ten years old and declared the value as is in the invoice as 'transaction value'. The customs authorities were not satisfied by the declaration and sought the help of Police. Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the correct date of manufacture of the imported sulzer machines. Relying on report of the forensic Science Laboratory the customs authorities came to conclusion that the machines imported were of more than ten years old and the value declared is also not correct. The appellant waived the issuance of show cause notice but attended the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority come to a decision that the imported...

H.P. Kureel Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT263

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. 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 order dated 28th March, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1658/1996. The impugned judgment is largely based upon the dismissal of the O.A. filed by the petitioner for non-joinder of the parties. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, it has been held that the result of the O.A. would affect the seniority of the persons at Seriall No. 438 to 588 in the seniority list and accordingly their non-joinder was fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Raju submits that he did not and is not claiming any relief against any of these persons and this makes the judgment of the Tribunal totally flawed.3. The position of law in respect of non-joinder of the parties in service matters is to be found in the judgment of the ...

State Vs. Ravikant Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT370; 2006(89)DRJ421

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the opinion of the trial court expressed during the recording of the cross-examination of PW-193 (Inspector Sukhwinder Singh) with regard to submissions alleged to have been made by PW-66 (Rakesh Bhatnagar). The portion of the opinion which is impugned herein reads as under:It is not in dispute that this witness has admitted to have interrogated PW Rakesh Bhatnagar several times but copy of seven statements (recorded by me and other IO's) only is supplied to accused R.K. Sharma. In my opinion even the gist made after interrogating a person i.e., PW Rakesh Bhatnagar was a statement in view of aforesaid provision and the accused was entitled to get copy of such gists of statements. Prosecution is accordingly to supply the copies of such gists to accused R.K. Sharma.2. The learned Special Public Prosecutor who argued this matter on behalf of the petitioner (State) submitted that by virtue of the above opinion / direction,...

Hind Industries Ltd. and Hind Agro Vs. C.C., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both appellants are Export Oriented Units, engaged in the export of meat products. The impugned product attracted cess until 17th January 2001. It is being submitted that on 3rd January 2001, the appellant wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and delivered it to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. A seal of the Tuglakabad office, purportedly of Deputy Commissioner (Refund), ICD, TKD dated 4.1.2001 along with file No. is to be seen on the copy of the letter filed in the present appeal. The said letter points out that meat export are sold under highly competitive conditions in the International market and levy of any duty/cess on export is putting a hindrance for boosting of their exports.2. Cess on meat export was reduced to 0% under Notification dated 17th January 2001. Even after the issuance of that notification, the appellant continued to pay cess in regard to their exports. Later, on 17th May 2002, both the appellants filed refund applications claiming refun...