Delhi Court February 1995 Judgments

Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT154TriDel

1. On a prayer made by the appellants, the Final Order No. 253/93-C, dated 29-7-1993 in the above mentioned matter was recalled by the Tribunal by Misc. Order No. 103/94-C to decide the issue relating to valuation which had inadvertently remained undecided while passing the Final Order dated 29-7-1993.2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri T.K. Ramasubramanyan, learned Advocate, with Shri S. Subramanyan, C.A. appeared before us. Shri Ramasubramanyan stated that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in not accepting the appellants' contention that the assessable value of the drawings imported by the appellants in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the appellants M/s. Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. (TAFE) and M/s. Massey Ferguson Manufacturing Ltd. (MF) was only 10,000 which was the intrinsic value of the goods. He submitted that on perusal of the MOU it follows that it was reached with the express intention to the formulation, provision and supply by MF to TAFE over a...

Maharaja Jagat Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi14; 58(1995)DLT130; 1995(34)DRJ1

ORDER1. Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh, defendant No. 1 by this application wants the plaint to be rejected, primarily on the groundthat it does not disclose any cause of action. This plea is based on the fact that Maharaja Man Singh was the absolute owner of these properties as ruler prior to the merger of the Jaipur State with Union of India and even after the merger the Maharaj Man Singh remained its absolute owner. By merger of Jaipur State with the Government of India, these properties of the Maharaj did not become H.U.F. properties. Reference was made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh v. Her Highness Maharani Sarojini Devi, in Civil Appeal No. 5857/ 83 decided on 17th August, 1993. The defendant No. 1, being the eldest son, after the death of Maharaj Man Singh ascended to the throne (Gaddi) as per the custom and the law prevalent and also as per the Covenant signed by the Ruler with the Government of India. The private properties of late Ma...

Sarla Kumari Vs. H.L. Dua and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1296; 59(1995)DLT370; 1995RLR267

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in November, 1989 seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to remove the unauthorised construction at property bearing No. 22/67-68, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Petitioner is the owner of the neighbouring house. Certain other directions are also sought that the property be not allowed to be occupied and that water and electric connection be not provided there. It is not necessary for us to refer to various proceedings held in this petition so far and the various directions issued from time to time. Action was also proposed to be taken against other unauthorised buildings in the locality which had come up in violation of the sanctioned plans and building bye-laws. We are told that action is being taken against those properties as well in accordance with law. As far as the present case is concerned it was recorded on 5 August, 1991 that admittedly 1400 square feet of the constructed portion on t...

Sahjanad Tobacco Company Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT600TriDel

1. This is an application filed by the applicants under Section 35 C of the CESA for the Rectification of Mistake.2. Shri G. Shiva Dass, the Id. Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the mistake has crept in the order as the penalty was not imposable under Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules, on the date of issue of the show cause notice in respect of unmanufactured tobacco.Shri Shiva Dass said that show cause notice dated 29-9-1979 was issued to the applicants alleging shortage of unmanufactured tobacco and proposing demand of duty under Rule 160 of Central Excise Rules and imposition of penalty under Rules 32 and 151 of Central Excise Rules.On appeal filed by the applicants, the Tribunal held that no duty can be demanded from the applicants. As regards imposition of penalty, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that since Rule 32 of the Central Excise Rules was omitted before the issue of the show cause notice, penalty imposed under that Rule was not sustainable. H...

Tubetech Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT223TriDel

1. This appeal relates to the claim made by the appellants for a pro rata abatement in duty consequent upon the imported goods (a consignment of seamless carbon steel tubes) being found to be damaged at the time of clearance after being warehoused by redetermination of assessable value. The claim was made on 28-5-1984 before the Assistant Collector (Customs), Ahmedabad. Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for such rebate on proof of damaged or deteriorated imported goods. The Assistant Collector held that the evidence showed that the damage had occurred prior to warehousing of the goods and as per Section 22(1)(c) of Customs Act the damage not being due to default or negligence on the part of appellants, the Assistant Collector found that no abatement was permissible. The Assistant Collector's order was upheld in substance by Collector (Appeals), who found as follows : "But the appellant had not satisfied the customs authorities that the warehoused goods had been damaged on a...

J.S. Punia Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1995Delhi768

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present writ petition wants this Court to issue a writ of prohibition restraining ]the respondents from convening the General Court Martial. He further wants direction from this Court for his release from the service. (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition in order to fully and properly appreciate the points involved herein are as under; that the petitioner was commissioned as a Pilot Officer in Indian Air Force in June 1980. On account of his diligence, intelligence and hard work he was promoted to the rank of Sqn. Ldr. in the year 1990. The petitioner is an honest, upright and a man of rectitude. Thus he could not tolerate corruption and other illegal activities in the Force. (3) SQN. Ldr. Nair on May, 18,1990 forced the wife of the petitioner to have drink in a function which she declined. It led to a flaming row in between the petitioner and the said Sqn. Ldr. Nair. Shri Nair reported the matter to the Commanding Offic...

Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)905; 1995(1)ARBLR555(Delhi); 58(1995)DLT99; 1995(33)DRJ333

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The dispute mainly revolves around clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 52 and clauses a(i) and c(ii) of sub section (i) of section 14 of the Copyright Act (hereinafter called the Act). However, first the facts. (2) The Gramophone Company of India Limited which is the plaintiff before me had produced audio records titled Hum Aapke Hain Kaun under rights alleged to have been assigned to it by Rajshree Productions Pvt. Ltd. who happen to be the Copyright owners of the cinematographic work. The plaintiff claims that it has already sold 55 lakh audio cassettes and 40,000 compact discs titled 'Hum Aapke Hain Kaun' and hope to sell an equal number of additional audio cassettes and compact discs with the result that the title 'Hum Aapke Hain Kaun', when used on a record, has come to be associated with the plaintiff alone. Its grievance is that the defendants too have launched an audio cassette by adopting 'Hum Aapke Hain Kaun' as its title with its design, colour sche...

Ramesh Chander Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainants (175 in number) are residents of West Kanti Nagar, Delhi-51. They approached the DESU, Opposite Party for electrification of the said area in 1989. It is alleged that the Opposite Party decided to recover development charges from them @ Rs. 12/- per sq. yard, which they deposited before April, 1990. However, later they started demanding the electrification charges @ Rs. 47/- per sq. yard which is illegal. Hence the complaint. 2. The Opposite Party contested the complaint. They inter-alia pleaded that the charges were got deposited on the basis of estimate and that they had every right to revise the rate. It is further pleaded by them that pricing policy does not fall within the purview of the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) 3. The first question that arises for determination is, what is the effect of depositing of the amount by the complainant for electrification on the ...

Vikas Engineering Associates Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT219TriDel

1. These are three appeals filed by (i) M/s. Vikas Engineering Associates (hereinafter referred to as 'VEA') against the order-in-original dated 20-1-1994, passed by the CCE, Allahabad; (ii) M/s. Control and Switchgear Co. Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'C & S'), against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-3-1993 of the CCE (Appeals), New Delhi; and (iii) Revenue - CCE (Pune) against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-12-1991, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, in the case relating to M/s. Ravi Industries, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as 'Ravi Industries'). In the appeal by VEA, the Revenue has filed Cross Objections, while in the appeal filed by the Revenue - CCE, Pune, the respondent - Ravi Industries have filed the Cross Objections. All the three appeals were fixed for common hearing but separate arguments were advanced in respect of different appeals. As we find that the goods under consideration are not the same in these separate appeals, although...

Vijay Kumar Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT62TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by S/Shri Vijay Kumar and Sant Baba Jaswant Singh against the confiscation of a Truck with Registration No.ITRX 7281 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the former. The second-mentioned appellant is the owner of the confiscated vehicle for which option to redeem was given on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 30,000/-.2. Shri Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted during the hearing that Shri Vijay Kumar is the Booking Clerk of the Transport Company, which had accepted the goods in question and loaded them for transport to Ludhiana. He had requested for cross-examination of the panch witnesses and the concerned departmental officers. The appellant had cooperated with the department. He had shown the tempo which had brought the goods to them for being loaded in their truck. He did not know about the contraband nature of the goods in question.Penalty had been imposed on him under Section 112 of Customs Act. He had ...