Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC352
1. In this appeal, the challenge is against the imposition, by the Commissioner of Customs, of a penalty of Rs. 75,000 on the appellant under Section H2(b) of the Customs Act.2. The appellant was one of the three occupants of the truck which was intercepted by Customs officers in the night of 4/5 March, 2001 on the Gorakhpur-Sonauli road. The other two occupants of the truck were the driver Shiv Achal Patel and the owner Virendra Pratap. The truck was coming from Sonauli, a place within the territory of India, near the Indo-Nepal border. On a thorough check of the vehicle, the officers discovered foreign origin computer parts bearing the marking 'Made in Phillipines' in secret cavities behind the driver's seat. On interrogation, the driver stated that the cavities had been constructed for smuggling of goods from Nepal; and that the computer parts found in the cavities were brought from Nepal. The officers, believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-15-2002
Reported in : 103(2003)DLT269; 2003(3)SLJ303(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By this judgment and order, we propose to deal with the matter relating to grant of disability pension to Army personnel below officer rank so that several similar petitions raising similar questions as have been raised in this petition are disposed of.-I-Facts 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution lie in a narrow compass. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a regular combatant on 11th January, 1984. Before his enrolment, he was subjected to a detailed medical examination. The Petitioner was found medically fit at the time of his joining the Army.3. In the year 1990, the Petitioner developed neurotic depression. He was admitted to the Army Hospital on 7th December, 1990 at Nazirabad. Thereafter, he was transferred to a hospital in Jodhpur on 30th December, 1990.4. On 10thApril, 1991, the Petitioner was recommended for being invalided out from the Army by the Medical Board. The Graded Specialist (Psychiatry) opin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-2002
Reported in : 101(2002)DLT471
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The question arising for consideration is whether a doctor, with an M.B.B.S. degree, having deficiently of colour blindness, is to be debarred from pursuing any post graduate Medical Course? The concerned Medical College denied admission to the petitioner in M.D. (Pathology). The Director General of Health Services and the Committee of Experts opined that the petitioner being totally colour blind cannot be considered for admission in Post Graduate Course in Anaesthesiology, Psychiatry and Community Medicine.3. Here are the facts:-(i) Petitioner is a Doctor, who completed his M.B.B.S. from Nalanda Medical College, Patna, Bihar. Petitioner earnestly desired to pursue higher studies. Accordingly he appeared in the All India Quota, Post Graduate Entrance Examination. Results was declared in the month of February, 2002.(ii) Petitioner qualified and ranked at No. 1308. Petitioner opted for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-02-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)SLJ76(Delhi)
Khan, J.1. Petitioner, a Lt. Commander in the Navy, is clamouring for promotion to the rank of Commander. He was considered by Selection Board-III on 6.5.1999 but was not selected. He filed an ROG against this and during its pendency, he was asked to forward duly filled-up ACR forms for May 1996 to October 1996 which he was told were not available. He was then asked to forward duly filled up ACR forms for the entire period from November 1995 to May 1996 in March 2000 to one Captain Virender Singh. He claims that even though he had completed all these formalities but his ROG was rejected by order dated 31.5.2000. He then approached the next higher authority in second ROG on the ground that Promotion Board had rejected him in absence of relevant ACRs but even this was turned down.2. Petitioner says he later made representations dated 13.9.2000, 11.6.2001 and 16.7.2001 to Government of India and the defense Ministry which were disposed of by orders dated 18.6.2001 and 29.8.2001 directing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-09-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC305
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Northern Tannery is whether Special Additional Duty of Customs is payable by them on the goods imported.2. Shri C.K. Rawal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture finished leather, shoes, etc., for exporting to various countries; that they had imported Wet Blue Buff Hides falling under sub-heading No. 4101.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act from Nepal during the month of March, 2000. The goods were cleared without payment of duty and that subsequently a show cause notice dated 8-9-2000 was issued for demanding Special Additional Duty from them; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has confirmed the demand of duty along with interest. He further submitted that Notification No. 18/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 provides exemption from Special Additional Duty to all goods which are exempt from (a) the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule; and (b) the whole ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : 102(2003)DLT868; 2003(66)DRJ569; 2003(87)ECC105
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal has been moved on behalf of the appellant who stands convicted under Section 20(B)(ii) and Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only). The appellant was sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of which he was ordered to undergo further RI for six months.2. The appellant who is a foreign national was a transit passenger from Nepal to Amsterdam. On the intervening night of 26th and 27th June, 1997, he was searched at IGI Airport New Delhi and was found to be in possession of 13.476 kgs. Charas. The appellant was put to trial. Learned Trial Judge after considering the prosecution evidence and the defense of the appellant convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. His appeal against conviction and sentence is pending disposal before this Court.3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT104TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Priya Holding Pvt.Ltd., is whether the customs duty is separately leviable on stores and bunkers or these goods are to be included in LDT of the ship brought for breaking.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported one old ship M.V. BORROVICHI; that they paid the customs duty of Rs. 50,52,210/-; that subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 4/99, dated 30-3-99, dropped the demand on movable gears but confirmed the demand on bunker and food-stuff in terms of Board's Circular No. 37/96 Cus., dated 3-7-1996; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order dated 14-12-2001, rejected their appeal holding that the fuel kept in the engine room could not be treated as a part of engine and machinery and ship stores were classifiable separately in their own appropriate Heading of the Customs Tariff and not to be classified along with the ship. The learned Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC88
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Priya Holding Pvt.Ltd., is whether the customs duty is separately leviable on stores and bunkers or these goods are to be included in LDT of the ship brought for breaking.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported one old ship M.V. BQRROVICHI: that they paid the customs duty of Rs. 50,52,210; that subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 4/99 dated 30.3.99, dropped the demand on movable gears but confirmed the demand on bunker and food stuff in terms of Board's Circular No. 37/96/Cus. dated 3.7.1996; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order dated 14.12.2001, rejected their appeal holding that the fuel kept in the engine room could not be treated as a part of engine and machinery and ship stores were classifiable separately in their own appropriate Heading of the Customs Tariff and not to be classified alongwith the ship. The learned Advocate, fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2002
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, Shri Jai Prakash Saini, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the complainant, an ex-serviceman, re-employed with the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as a Clerk-cum-Coin Note Examiner, in August, 1997 suffered stomach ailment, consulted the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, for treatment, who, after examining the complainant, gave treatment which provided only temporary relief to the complainant and gradually two glands on the neck and one gland on the left side of the face of the complainant appeared. The Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, under whose treatment the complainant was, after a few days of medication advised the complainant to consult some surgical specialist. On the advice of the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, the complainant approached the doctor at the Armed Forces C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-16-2002
Reported in : (2003)(87)ECC79
1 The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of copper scrap and declared as copper scrap of "Dream Grade as per ISRI." Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the copper scrap, in question, was in fact of Birch Grade and not of Dream Grade. The adjudicating authority held that the scrap is of Birch Grade and on the ground of misdeclaration, the goods were confiscated and also enhanced the value of the scrap treating as Birch Grade. A personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on the firm and Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the partners of the firm. The appellant filed an appeal and the Tribunal vide order dated 13.6.2001 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for dc novo adjudication and the Commissioner confiscated the scrap and also imposed penalties on the ground of misdeclaration of goods.3. The impugned order is passed in pursuance to ...
Tag this Judgment!