Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Super Pack Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, we are disposing of the appeal after hearing the learned DR and perusing the record.2. Duty demand of about Rs. 70,000/- has arisen on account of a finding that the appellant had under valued "Oily Tape Waste" which was used for captive consumption. The appellant had valued the goods @ Rs. 4/- per kg. while the revenue has fixed a value of Rs. 8.62 per kg. for the purpose of demanding the differential duty.3. The contention of the assessee is that price would vary according to the variety. It is being pointed out that the appellant was disposing of superior varieties of waste like "Super White Tape Waste @ Rs. 10/- and Colour Tape Waste @ Rs. 8/- per kg. It is the contention that the Oily Tape waste in question was very inferior and revenue is in an error in adopting the price of superior waste for the purpose of valuing inferior material. It is also on record that the same rate had been submitted by the party and under an adjudicat...

Siel Ltd. Vs. Cosco Sales and Services Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]78SCL335(Delhi)

Anil Kumar, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company, Cosco Sales and Services Ltd.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015. The respondent is also a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. The petitioner company contended that at all relevant times it owned the industrial units, Siel Foods and Fertilizer Industries and Siel Chemical Complex. The company was manufacturing, selling supplying various Chemicals such as caustic soda etc. and the respondent was appointed as an authorized dealer.4. The respondent was placing orders for purchase of various Chemicals as per respondent's requirement and purchasing goods under the name and style of Cosco Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. The respond...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. J.P. Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT276

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners by this writ petition assail the order dated 27th July, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No. 352/2005. The Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 20th June, 2000, compulsorily retiring the respondent from service and the order dated 28th January, 2004, passed by the Revisional Authority, reducing punishment of compulsory retirement to reduction of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. The Central Administrative Tribunal proceeded primarily on the limited ground that the statements of witnesses, which had been recorded during the preliminary enquiry by the complainant, were neither ratified nor authenticated by the makers of the statements, during the inquiry proceedings. Hence these could not be relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to uphold the charges and impose the above punishment. The Tribunal procee...

Smt. Khema, Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Aarif,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT388; 2007(94)DRJ843

J.M. Malik, J.1. The burning point of discussion in this second appeal is, 'whether the appellants are the tenants in the property in dispute', a plea raised by them which found no favor with two Courts below. Sheikh Mohd. Aarif, Sheikh Mohd. Adil, respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery for mesne profit against the appellants. Shrifudin and Prem Singh (Now respondents 3 and 4 respectively), who are stated to be their co-owners, were arrayed as defendants 4 and 5 in the original suit. Learned Civil Judge vide order dated 20.04.2004 decreed the suit for possession of one room on the ground floor of house No. 491 that is one-fourth being part of property No. 491-494, Tokriwala, Jama Masjid, Delhi. He also decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 3600/- and ordered that future mesne profit @ 100/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the date of delivery of possession along with interest @ 4% be paid by the appellants to the responde...

Lekh Raj and anr. Vs. Suram Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ2165

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants, parents of the deceased Ranjan Kumar, who died in an accident on 3.5.1993 seek enhancement of compensation awarded.2. The award is dated 15.5.2003. Loss of dependency to the appellants has been worked out as under:(15) According to Lekh Raj, PW 1, father of the deceased, deceased Ranjan Kumar was working as conductor and used to give Rs. 1,000 per month for household expenses and at the time of accident was unmarried and was aged about 25 years. It has also been stated by PW 1 that if Ranjan Kumar would not have died, he would have been earning a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased Ranjan Kumar and also his antecedents and the fact that he had passed Senior School Certificate Examination in 1988 as per photocopy, Exh. PW 1/13 and also the background of the parents of the deceased and the age of the petitioners and also the future prospects, a compensation amount of Rs. 1,60,000 would be just and reasonable, which is be...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hotline Cpt Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. It appears from the narration of facts in the application and the submissions made by the learned authorized representative for the department that the appellant was pursuing remedy before the Government of India under an impression that the appeal could be entertained by the Government of India. However, after the papers were returned on 19-7-2006, the present appeal has been filed. Since the appellant appears to have been bonafidely pursuing proceeding before the wrong forum, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned as sufficient cause is made out....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Amrit Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The relevant fact of the case, in brief, are that the respondent imported various vegetable oils for use in the manufacture of vanaspati and refined oil. at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. dated 6-3-2000, It was noticed that the respondent received 30283.3 MTs of vegetable oils against the 30428.9 MT imported by them as mentioned in the bill of Entries. It has been alleged that in terms of the said notification, concessional rate of Customs duty is applicable, if the vegetable oils, imported are used for the manufacture of vanaspati or refined oil.Therefore, 145.6 MT of vegetable oils received short have not been used for the specified purpose, thus benefit of concessional rate of Custom duty is not available to the respondent and accordingly, Custom duty of Rs. 5,43,078/- is recoverable. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals)...

Aditya Cement Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC552

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dt.20.10.05.2. The issue involved in this case is whether the inputs and capital goods used in mines are entitled to avail Cenvat credit. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker falling under sub-heading 2502.29 and 2502.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.They availed Cenvat credit on explosives which are used in mines.3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue is already decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE, Indore reported at and 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC).4. Heard Ld. DR. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the case is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Vikram Cement v. CCE . I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur...

Cce Vs. Golden Rolls Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC556

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal.2. In these cases, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claims but the same were credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeals of respondents 4. The issue involved is as to whether the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable on finalization or provisional assessment made under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short "Rules 1944"), refund of duty paid on 1986 to 1990, much before amendment of Rule 9B on 25.6.99 when Section, (11B including unjust enrichment was made applicable to Rule 9B Provisional assessment case) The ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondents submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the CCE v.Allied Photographics Inds. Ltd. , wherei...

Mohd. Nooruzzama Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2125; 137(2007)DLT325

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 395/2006 seek to challenge the judgment dated 21.04.2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 94/2001, F.I.R.No.540/2001, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, convicted the appellants Mohd. Nooruzzuma and Vinay @ Raja under Section 364A IPC and further by his order dated 25.04.2005, sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. They were both awarded the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:That on 13.07.2001 a lady named Babita R/o C-162, Binda Pur, Pocket-4, Uttam Nagar, Delhi lodged a complaint with the police. In her complaint she stated that she is a house wife and three years back a boy aged 20/22 years had worked with her as a servant for about 10 days. A week back he agai...