Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments

Sanjay Kr. JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT77TriDel

1. This appeal by Shri Sanjay Kr. Jain is directed against Order No.241/89, dated 25-10-1989 passed by Additional Collector of Customs (Prev.), New Delhi insofar as it related to the confiscation of the truck belonging to the appellants giving him the option to redeem it on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 75,000/-. In the appeal it has been pleaded that confiscation and imposition of fine be set aside.2. Shri L.C. Sikka, learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and argued his case. He stated that though the appellant is the owner of the truck he is not handling the work of the transport company which was using the car. His brother was looking after that work. It was pleaded by Shri Sikka that the appellant was not responsible for the use of the truck in carrying the goods which were seized by the customs authorities therefrom. He relied upon the Bombay High Court judgment reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 375 wherein it was held that confiscation of the ship carrying smug...

Baker Mercer (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT336TriDel

1. M/s. Baker Mercer (India) Ltd. have filed three appeals. As the issue involved in the three appeals is the same, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. These appeals have been filed against the orders of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of mechanical/pneumatic/electronic gauges and parts thereof. They have been selling oil and moisture filters which they claim to be an optional accessory and happens to be a bought out item with the air gauges to some of the customers who order for them alongwith the order for air gauges. The department was of the view that oil and moisture filters are standard equipment/accessory of air gauges and therefore the value of the oil and moisture filters should be added to the assessable value of air gauges and duty will be computed on the composite value. The Asstt. Collector in his order after examining the evidence produced by the a...

Sukeshan Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC93Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dated 21-4-1993.2. The appellants described the impugned goods in the Bill of Entry No.0010521, dated 30-11-1992 as and claimed classification under sub-heading 8466.93 alongwith the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus.3. It is stated in the order-in-original that the machine was examined with reference to catalogue and technical literature in the presence of importers' representative. It is stated that this machine is capable of working on work pieces of maximum dimensions 2000 mm x 1000 mm x 260 mm. It is further stated that before performing the actual function of boring, X-Y coordinates have to be correctly aligned and marked on the work piece which is placed on the table of the machine. Marking of X-Y co-ordinate is done by milling operation. Milling cutter is attached to the spindle and X-Y Co-ordinate are finally machined on the work piece.The correct alignment is ch...

JaIn Steel Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT336TriDel

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the adjudged amount of duty and penalty and proceed to take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of mild steel flats of thickness not exceeding 5 mm falling under sub-heading 7209.20 CETA, 1985 out of raw material (inputs) namely misrolls, for cutting, MS Rounds/Squares, round cutting etc. Scrutiny of the appellants' records revealed that deemed credit to the tune of Rs. 1,04,995.86 had been availed during the period 3-12-1986 to 19-6-1987 on 287.660 MTs of inputs which the Department alleges to be clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and hence not admissible in terms of the Ministry of Finance letter F. No.22/5/86-TRU, dated 7-4-1986. The contention of the appellants in the reply to the show cause notice dated 30-6-1987 and during the personal hearing that the Department had not discharged the...

Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT31TriDel

1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the eligibility to entry No. 40 of Notification 53/88-C.E., dated 1st March, 1988 of multilayer bags manufactured by the appellant. These bags of which samples were shown to us at the time of hearing made out by stitching together three bags. Outermost bag is made by high density polyethylene woven fabric laminated with kraft paper. The second is made of kraft paper alone.The third, the inner most, is made of low density polyethylene. The three are held in place by being stitched along the bottom. There is no dispute about the classification of these bags under sub-heading 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The question for decision is whether these bags would qualify for the benefit of Notification No.53/88-C.E., dated 1st March, 1988 and Entry No. 40 or Entry No. 40A.2. Shri R. Santhanam, advocate for the appellant argued that these bags were specially manufactured for caprolactum manufactured by M/s.Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, T...

State Bank of India Vs. Suresh Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT199

Usha Mehra, J.(1) State Bank of India filed this suit for the recovery of Rs.1,36,123.00 against Shri Suresh Kumar and others based on the facts that defendantNo. 1 Suresh Kumar borrowed money from the plaintiff bank for the purchase ofa Tata open truck model 1980. On the request of defendant No. 1 and on the guarantee being furnished by defendant No. 2, a Medium Term Loan of Rs.l,45,000.00 was sanctioned favoring defendant No. 1. The said truck after purchase was to be hypothecated with the bank as security. The bank was to charge interest at the rate of 4% per annum below State Bank of India's Advance Rate with a minimum of 12.5% per annum. The said truck was comprehensively ensured with defendant No. 3 i.e. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It was insured in the name of defendant No. 1. and the plaintiff bank was shown as the pledgee of the vehicle as interested party. Defendant No. 2 pledged his special term deposit receipt forRs. 45,000 / - with the bank. It was duly discharged in ...

Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Fin ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1401; 1995(33)DRJ368

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 16 June 1994 read with order dated 21 October 1994 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench 'A', passed under section 35-F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act').(2) The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the appellate order dated 7 February 1994 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal), Chandigarh, by which he confirmed the order-in-original dated 11 November 1993 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Patiala. The Assistant Collector had raised a demand of central excise duty of Rs.2,16,06,131.00 . In the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal the petitioner sought stay of recovery of the aforesaid Central Excise duty, and for that purpose had filed an application under section 35-F of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 16 June 1994 directed the petitio...

Nand Kishore JaIn Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Delhi and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1996Delhi121

D.K. Jain, J. (1) The petitioner was employed as an Accounts Clerk by the All India Khadi and Village Industries Board on 13 December, 1956. After Khadi and Village Industries Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') was established under Section 4 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (for short the Act), the services of the petitioner were taken over by the A Commission. The petitioner was posted and all through worked in the Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan, New Delhi. The management of Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management'), placed the petitioner under suspension on 13 October, 1970 and eventually served a charge sheet dated 22 December, 1970, accusing him of certain irregularities and embezzlement of funds. The petitioner denied the allegation. His services were terminated. Aggrieved by the said termination of his services, the petitioner sent a notice of demand to the management on 16 May, 972 asking for his reinstatement. Si...

Darshan Singh Vs. Avtar Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT747; 1994RLR439

Arun Kumar, J. 1. The Petitioner landlord filed an eviction petition under Clause (a) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent tenant on the ground of non-payment or orent. A notice as envisaged under Clause (a) dated 16.2.1983 was issued on behalf of the landlord to the tenant. The tenant moved an application under Section 27 of the Act on 23.2.1983 are deposited rent with the Additional Rent Controller for three years. On 7.3.1983, the tenant sent an intimation to the landlord regarding the said deposit of rent. The deposit of rent by the tenant was taken as a valid deposit and the eviction petition was dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller as non-maintainable. An appeal against the said order of the Addl. Rent Controller was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 21.2.1991. The Tribunal has observed that the demand notice was clearly complied with and, thereforee, the landlord had no cause of action for, f...

Kamlesh Gaur Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 4th January 94, by the complainant. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant was running a factory in the name of M/s. Urvashi Machine Parts. The proprietary business was converted by her into a Pvt. Ltd. Company in 1985 and it was named as M/s. Kay Automatics Pvt. Ltd. then applied for amending the licence to the M.C.D. Inspite of various applications the licence was not amended by them. Thereafter, it is alleged, she engaged the services of Shri A.S. Girgla and paid him Rs. 2,500/- for getting the needful done. It was agreed between them that if the licence was got amended by him he would be paid Rs. 500/- more. The licence was got amended by Mr. Girgla in the name of M/s. Kay Automatics Pvt. Ltd. and she paid Rs. 500/- more to him. 2. It is further averred that she made the complaint against the respondent to the Anti Corruption Department of Delhi Administration. She was required ...