Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments

Dr. A.H. Rizvi Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT454TriDel

The appellant, a Skin Specialist, imported a V.W. Passat GLD car (1980 Model). The appellant bought the said car from Volkswagon, Munich. The said car was being used by Volkswagen for about 20 months as a demonstration and odd job car. The appellant bought the same on 10-8-1982 on "as is arid where is basis" for a sum of D.M. 14,605.00.2. Though the car was originally registered as GLD, however, with passage of time and usage a number of fittings had got damaged and the same were removed and/or replaced with less expensive fittings.Further, though when the car was bought, it was, fitted with a Blanpunct Radio Cassette, the same was removed subsequently by the appellant even before the car was imported. Similarly, the air-conditioner fitted in the car was also removed by the appellant after it was purchased (but before it was imported into India). Since it was causing undue strain on the engine, the cassette and the air-conditioner were not imported by the appellant and were left abroa...

Asa Ram and Another Vs. M.C.D. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996ACJ20; 1994IVAD(Delhi)365; AIR1995Delhi164; 56(1994)DLT441

ORDER1. Sh. Asa Ram and another, by this suit, against the M.C.D. and others, have sought recovery of Rs. 4 lacs as damages on account of the death of their son Karan Singh, which according to them was caused due to rash and negligent act of defendants.2. Brief facts giving rise to this suit are that in the beginning of July, 1985, a loose earth wire separated from the main electric wire crossing the house of the plaintiffs and protruded across the staircase of the house of the plaintiffs. The said wire was naked and un insulated. It was carrying high electric current. Plaintiffs had been lodging complaints to defendant No. 2, i.e., Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (in short the DESU) regarding defective supply and of hanging loose wire on their house. About defective lines complaint was lodged as far back as in July, 1982, but no action was taken by the defendants except a casual visit by its junior staff. Pole No. 38 installed by the defendantwas the electric pole supplying electric...

Naresh Kakkar Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1508; 1995CriLJ3062; 1994(3)Crimes504; 56(1994)DLT53

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed for clubbing the charges framed in the cases F.I.R. 35/88 and 37/88 pending in the Court of Mr. V. S. Aggrawal, A.S.J., Delhi. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this application are recapitulated as under : 2. Sub Inspector Prithvipal Singh of Police Station Chandni Mahal received a secret information that a person named Bhajan Singh was distributing Heroin through his agents. The information was passed on to the concerned S.H.O. by Prithvipal Singh, Sub Inspector. A raiding party was formed joining Police Officials and two persons from the public. The police vehicles were left at police post Turkman Gate and the raiding party was left to Chowk Ghaday Wailan near DDA Park. At about 1:15 P.M. the said Sub Inspector and Head Constable Ram Diya apprehended the petitioner who was allegedly carrying a green coloured attachi case was going on foot towards bazar Chitli Kabar. From that attachi case 10 pac...

S.K. Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 56(1994)DLT370

Usha Mehra, J. 1. M/s S.K. Aggarwal entered into an agreement with the Delhi Development Authority (in short the DDA) for development of residential scheme, Zone E-6, Dilshad Garden,(SH: S.W. Drains and Culverts). The said agreement was entered on 17th Day of October,1984. The said agreement contained arbitration clause No. 25 which provided that all questions and disputes relating to the contract shall be referred to the arbitration of the person appointed by the Engineer Member, DDA. Disputes arose between the parties and as being requested the Engineer Member, DDA, appointed Sh. S.C. Gupta, Superintending Engineer, as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference. Parties filed their statements and counter-statements of facts. After hearing, examining and considering statements of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence, he made and published his award dated 26th December, 1990. 2. The Award was filed in the Court. Notice of the filing of the same was i...

K.M. Singh Vs. Unit Trust of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This order will dispose of A-154 and A-127 of 1994, which arise out of the same judgment date 33-94 of District Forum-I (D.F.). 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant, K.M. Singh and his sister jointly purchased 2500 units of GIUS 87 for Rs. 25,000/- in Feb.87. According to the scheme to OP was to return Rs. 52,000/- after the termination of the scheme. It was to terminate on 31-7-92. They had purchased another 700 units of the same scheme for Rs. 7,000/-. 3. It is further pleaded that the complainant and his sister surrendered the unit certificates for 2500 units and 700 units to the OP duly discharged for payment, on 6-7-92. The OP, however, sent a cheque relating to 700 units within 10 days but they did not send the payment relating to 2500 units to them inspite of respected requests. On 8-8-92 he was informed that the signatures of the holders on the certificates did not tally. A letter dated 29-7-92 to that effect was sent to his sister, which was...

N.K. Aggarwal Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT83TriDel

1. Shri N.K. Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. Polyviniyl Industrial Corporation, 308/12, Shahzada Bagh, Delhi and Shri M. Walia have filed the above-captioned appeals being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. Since both the appeals emerge from the same order and as such both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that a Bill of Entry No. 239612 dated 3rd August, 1992 was filed and the name of the importer was shown as Polyvinyl Industrial Corporation and the value of the goods was declared at Rs. 40,774.00 CIF and an invoice No. 855 dated 30th July, 1992 from M/s. Shing Components (S) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore was produced with the said bill of entry. A declaration form under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 was also furnished bearing the signature of one Shri Suresh Kumar purported to be the proprietor of the said importing firm. The same signatur...

N.C.L. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT921TriDel

1. Since these two appeals involve the same issue, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The short point that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the concessional rate of duty of Rs. 90/- per tonne in respect of cement produced in factories of the description specified in column (2) against Serial Nos. 2 and 4 of Notification No. 24/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 was applicable to the first 99,000 tonnes of cement produced and cleared during the year 1991-92 including any quantity cleared between 1st April, 1991 and 25-7-1991 on payment of duty without availing any exemption or the exemption could be availed to the extent of the specified quantity of 99,000 tonnes during the period 25-7-1991 and 31-3-1992.3. In the order challenged by M/s. N.C.L. Industries Ltd. the Collector (Appeals) has held that exemption under the notification not being available to cement produced in excess of 99,000 tonnes, the specified quantity of 99,000 tonnes has to be deemed as inclusive of...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Binny Ltd. (B and C Mills)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT919TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 29-7-1988.2. Ld. D.R. stated that the Respondents are manufacturing 'Sizing Mix' which is consumed captively by them. They obtain various raw materials from market and subject them to the process described in details in the cross-objection filed by the Respondent.3. It was their contention that the product so obtained is excisable and classifiable under Chapter 38.09.4. It is a clearly recognised distinct product which comes into existence as a result of process of manufacture; and the fact that these goods are not actually sold is not relevant for considering excisability.5. Similar sizing agents for use in textile/paper industry are available in the market.6. The Assistant Collector has given detailed reasons in her order but the Collector (Appeals) has set aside that order and accepted the Respondent's version that it has no shelf life without any evidence thereof.7. That it had esca...

Steriware Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT348TriDel

1. This is an appeal against order-in-appeal No. 97-CE/DLH/91, dated 31-1-1991 upholding the order dated 28-6-1990 of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Faridabad under which he has rejected two refund claims of Rs. 903.42 and Rs. 4309.20 under Rule 173L and rejected the alternative plea of relief under Rule 151A.2. The appellants cleared disposable plastic body of syringes which were received back in the factory and therefore claimed refund under Rule 173L or relief under Rule 51 A. It was held by both adjudicating authorities and Collector (Appeals) that goods in one case were returned by the transporter in absence of ST-31 Forms and in the other case orders were not confirmed and therefore they were not returned for the purposes for which refund is allowed under Rule 173L. Since no permission has been taken under Rule 51A, no relief can be granted under this Rule.3. Ld. Consultant for the appellant submitted that they had filed D-3 intimation and the goods were entered in For...

Supreme Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC600Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Supreme Electronics, Ropar, Punjab, and M/s. Caditronics, Faridabad, Haryana, have filed separate appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 18-2-1992 of the Collector of Customs, Sahar Airport, Bombay. Both the appellants have also filed separate miscellaneous applications duly supported by affidavits for re-export of the goods. As both the appeals arise out of the common order they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Supreme Electronics ('S.E.' for short) and M/s. Caditronics ('CAD' for short) imported parts of video cassette recorders (VCR) from Singapore. M/s. CAD were not engaged in the manufacture of VCRs. M/s.SE were also not registered for manufacture of VCRs. On examination, it was found that between them they had imported 2000 sets of complete VCR kits (minus some minor parts) in the form of assemblies and sub-assemblies which were in the nature of restricted items for import licensing purposes. It was alleged that the goods im...