Latest Cases

Prem Lata and ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : II(2005)ACC555,2005ACJ557

.....of the bus was wrongly quoted as hp 038-2405 since later on it was corrected to read as hp 038-2403 which, as admitted by the respondents also in fact was the bus involved in the accident.6. finding on issue no. 2 was returned by the tribunal in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents and despite this, the claims tribunal dismissed the claim petition without awarding any compensation in favour of the appellants- claimants on the ground that there was novus actus interveniens, that is, there was a break in the chain causation and hence it could not be said that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries sustained by him because of the aforesaid accident. the tribunal by a very elaborate exposition of law with reference to the material facts of the case, if i may say so, very brilliantly cited the aforesaid juristic principle applicable to the facts of the present case and came to the conclusion that a proper link could not be established between the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased at the time of the accident and the cause of the death, especially in the light of the medical evidence on the point. in paras 18 and 19 of the judgment.....

Abdul Hamid Itoo Vs. State of J and K and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2004(3)JKJ23

.....affidavit have specifically replied the grounds set out in the petition. 2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. relying on section 13 of the act, the ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the grounds of detention have been served upon the detenu on 28.11.2002 and detenu taken in preventive custody on 20th december, 2002 which means that the grounds have been served before the detenu is taken in custody, which is contrary to the statutory procedure contained in section 13. there is substance in the plea of the ld. counsel for the petitioner. for facility of reference, section 13 is extracted below:'13. grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order: (1) when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, (but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention) communicate to him grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a.....

Abdul Rashid Khan Vs. State of J and K and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2004(3)JKJ24

.....not reveal that any steps have been taken by the respondents to execute the detention order. the detention order could not be executed despite the fact that the detenu was in their custody. learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment delivered in lpa no. 17/1999 wherein court was dealing with the delayed execution of the detention order by 49 days while no explanation for the delayed execution was tendered by the respondents. the lpa bench on consideration of this aspect observed that it is fatal to the case of the respondents and in consequence thereof the detention order was held invalid. this court while dealing with the same proposition in hcp no. 116/2003 observed as under:'learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy of delayed execution of detention order has been settled by the letters patent bench of this court in lpa no. 17/99 wherein the court was dealing with delay of 49 days. the respondents tendered no explanation for delayed execution and the court considering it fatal for maintaining the detention order and set aside it.' the court while dealing with it observed as under:'in the present case the detenu was available with.....

S.N. Kanchhal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

.....present complaint has been filed by mr. s.n. kanchhal against delhi development authority under section 17 of the consumer protection act, 1986. the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are as follows: 2. the complainant applied for allotment of a flat under 5th self financing registration scheme, 1982, category ii floated by the o.p.-d.d.a. on 9.8.1982. it was assured that the complainant would be allotted a flat within 3-4 years and the cost of the flat will be around rs. 3,00,000/-. subsequently, on the basis of draw held on 31.12.1987, the complainant was allotted a flat in category iii, ground floor, block b, pocket 10, vasant kunj, new delhi and the estimated cost of the flat was disclosed as rs. 3,39,600/-. the said money was to be paid in four instalments vide the letter dated 8.5.1988. it was also mentioned that the estimated cost of the flat is provisional and is subject to revision and also that normally it takes 2 to 2½ years period for completion of the project, it was also mentioned in this letter that if due to unforeseen reason, the project is delayed then the applicant will be entitled to interest in a phased manner. it is.....

Albert David Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2004)(96)ECC435

.....is issued it will not be open for the assessee to challenge the adjudication order on the bill of entry merely by filing an application of refund. the position will be different when there is no lis between the parties and it was only a mere assessment on the bill of entry. in the facts of the case it was submitted that there was a lis between the parties. therefore, we held that the application filed by the appellant therein for refund under section 27 was only to be rejected by applying the ratio of the decision in flock india. but we expressed no view on the contention taken by the appellant regarding mere assessment of bill of entry without a lis involved.3. in the present case also identical contentions are raised. it is submitted that there is lis between the parties. under these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal following our order, dated 17-5-2004. we make it clear that we are not expressing any view on the contention of the appellant that if it is only a mere assessment of bill of entry, the ratio of flock india will not be applicable.

Reliance Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioners of Customs (Prev.)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(95)ECC180

.....the help of cbu, & other instruments the cargo in the barges is loaded on to the convey belt system which moves the cargo from the jetty to the factory of the appellant to storage areas situated about 2 to 33 kms away from the jetty. when the cargo is unloaded from the "mother vessel" on to the barges, the pay loaders/unloaders belonging to the appellants are used in the hatches of the 'foreign mother vessel' to bring the cargo from the corners of the hatch to the centre of the hatch, under its mouth, to facilitate the floating crane to lift the cargo from the hatches and discharge the same into the barges. the cleaning of hatches is also done by these payloaders/uniloaders. the barges/floating crane are required to be moored/unmoored, manually by the seamen, to and from the 'foreign mother vessel' at the anchorage for effective discharge of cargo, from the foreign 'mother vessel' on to the barges. the barges containing the imported cargo have to traverse about 16 to 20 nautical miles to bring the imported cargo at vikram jetty, a declared place of landing, for unloading/loading of import cargo under the customs act, 1962. following expenses are incurred on these operation:.....

Sunrise Soaps and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2004)(171)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai

1. the applicants m/s. sunrise soaps and chemicals ltd., in their present application seek condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. it has been pleaded that the commissioner (appeals) had disposed of three appeals, two by m/s. hindustan lever ltd., and one by m/s. sunrise soaps and chemicals ltd., the first applicant m/s.hindustan lever ltd. filed appeals against the impugned order in time whereas m/s. sunrise soaps and chemicals ltd., had filed the instant appeal after a delay or 42 days. the id, counsel for the applicant submits that, since it was a common order covering all the three appeals, it was their bona fide belief that, the appeal filed by m/s.hindustan lever ltd., would cover the grounds against the impugned order raised in the applicant's case also. however, on realizing that a separate appeal is required to be filed, the instant appeal has been filed, which involved the delay of 42 days.3. considering the submissions made by the id. counsel, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case to condone the delay.4. accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.the appeal shall be taken up for regular hearing in due course.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Birla Tyres

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT417Tri(Kol.)kata

.....involved duty of rs. 22,16,639.00 against which proof of admittance have been issued by the competent authority . the appellant has represented the facts that they have already received the letter of admittance of proof of export in respect of 8 ak-4s before commissioner (appeals) and accepted by the commissioner (appeals) without any verification.2. secondly, he submits as regards 7 no. of ar-4s where the goods were diverted for home consumption, the contention of commissioner (appeals) that the appellant has already paid, the duly amount alongwith the interest is not correct. the assessee paid duty of fob value and interest @ 15% from 13-5-2002 instead of value under section 4 and interest @ 24% as contemplated in cbec manual. therefore, the deputy commissioner, central excise and customs, ballasore's demand of the differential duty amounting to rs. 12,97,588.00 and interest of rs. 10,29,783.00 from the assessee was correct. therefore, he submits that the appeal of revenue may kindly be accepted and the order of commissioner (appeals) may be set aside.3. learned advocate for the respondent mr. bagaria submits that in the present case as referred at page 13 of paper book, the.....

Coal Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2004)(171)ELT191Tri(Kol.)kata

.....meaning of section 65(25) of the finance act of 1994.3. dr. devi pal has, however, fairly submitted that the tribunal in the case of prabhat zarda factory (india) ltd, v. commissioner of central excise, patna, 2002 (145) e.l.t. 222, considered the definition of clearing and forwarding agent and has held that such definition was very wide and includes any services, even provided indirectly. further, learned advocate submits that the said judgment was delivered on 9-2-2002 and thereafter the finance act of 2003 was introduced and the new service viz. 'business auxiliary service' appearing in section 65(19) was introduced. the said service is in relation to promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; any customer care service provided on behalf of the client and any incidental or auxiliary support service such as billing, collection or recovery of cheques, accounts and remittance, evaluation of prospective customer and public relation services, and includes services as a commission agent. as such, he submits that the activities undertaken by the appellant are covered by the.....

Prem Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2004)(172)ELT398Tri(Kol.)kata

.....filed after the period of limitation and it is time barred. in this context, learned advocate has relied upon certain judgments reported in 2003 (155) e.l.t. 465 and also on a supreme court case reported in 1975 (2) 840. facts of the case of national insurance company v. shanti mishra and ors. which was cited by learned advocate are distinguishable. in a national insurance company's case, the accident occurred prior to the motor accidents claims tribunal were constituted and no suit had been filed in the civil courts and it was held by the hon'ble supreme court that the vested right of action was not meant to be extinguished. but in the present case the procedural law has been amended. all procedural amendments are prospective in nature till they are not saved by saving clause. hence the principle laid down in national insurance company's case is not applicable. in the present case the rom have been filed after the expiry of period of six months from the date of amendment. the application for rectification of mistakes is barred by limitation. hence the application for rectification of mistakes is rejected.