Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bansal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT149TriDel

1. This is a reference application by the Revenue for referring the following alleged question of law said to have arisen out of the Final Order No. A/772/94-NRB, dated 31-8-1994 : "(1) Whether can the MODVAT credit be availed of on the goods which are received without cover of prescribed duty paying documents. (2) Whether the CEGAT is empowered to treat a document not prescribed under proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as duty paying documents. (3) Whether the CEGAT is empowered to grant relief which is not envisaged under the statue/Central Excise Rules." 2. When the case was taken up Shri S. Sachdeva, Ld. SDR at the outset submitted that in other cases also similar applications were moved by the Revenue proposing the said questions of law for reference to the High Court concerned but rejected. He produced the photo copy of the Reference Order No. 81-82/94-NRB, dated 29-12-1994. However, he submitted that what was urged in the said cases on behalf ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT591TriDel

1. The issue for decision in this appeal is classification of eddy current non-destructive detector. The Collector of Customs (Appeal) Bombay had held that the item is classifiable under Heading 90.28(4)/90.16(1) of the Customs Tariff. The Collector of Customs in his appeal seeks to restore the original confiscation vested by the Assistant Collector under Heading 90.28(4)/ 90.16(1).2. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, SDR for the Collector and Shri V.R.Gandhi for the respondent.3. There is no dispute that the goods are used for detecting cracks fissures etc. in metal; which are not visible to the naked eye. It does this job by generating an eddy current on the surface of the metal bar and detect the disturbances in the eddy current which is caused by the presence of the defect. The disturbances are amplified electrically and displayed on a chart recorder. There is thus no dispute that the item is a checking instrument. The question is whether it is something more i.e. whether it also measu...

Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex., New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(81)ELT25(Del)

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the miscellaneous order passed by the CEGAT, New Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking modification of the order of stay and directing the petitioners to deposit the balance amount of pre-deposit to the tune of Rs. 2,73,945/-. The petitioners earlier filed an application before the Tribunal praying for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recover of Rs. 3,53,745/- demanded as duty on seized goods out of which 2 were fully finished special purposes vehicles. In the said application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal the petitioner further prayed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. 1 lac imposed on the petitioners and also for the redemption fine of Rs. 3 lacs imposed on the seized goods (vehicles). The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and considering the merits of the case and also the financial condition of the petitioners directed the petitioners vide o...

Rajendra Singh Sethia Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)162; 1995(34)DRJ137; 1995RLR448

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present petition has taken exception to the orders dated January 18,1994 passed by Shri L. D. Mual, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he framed charges against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Sections 224/223/129/328; 328 read with Sections 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; and the order dated January 20,1994 where through the learned additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 224 read with Sections 109 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.(2) Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petition arc as under: that the petitioner is an Indian citizen. He had all along been living and working in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. He was the Chairman of Esal Group of Companies. He came to India during December 1984/ January 1985. A case was registered against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation bearing No.RC 1/85 Cir (11)/CBI under Sections 420,468, 47...

Naraini Devi, Roop. Kishore Vs. Ram Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ228

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16 March 1991 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession of the property in suit and also for recovery of Rs.10,800.00 as damages.(2) The plaintiff (now the respondent) averred that he purchased the property bearing House No. X/2816, Gali No.5, Raghbarpura-II, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, from his brother Dev Raj on 13 July 1977 for a consideration of Rs.10,000.00. Plaintiff said out of this amount, Rs.8,000.00 were paid to Dev Raj before the Sub-Registrar and Rs.2,000.00 had been paid earlier. Then the plaintiff said that Dev Raj also handed over to him the sale deed as executed between them and also gave him the possession of the property in part performance of the sale consideration. Plaintiff says that after he took over the possession of the property from Dev Raj he let out a portion of the properly to Dev Raj at the rate of Rs.80.00 per...

R.P. JaIn Vs. Sahara India Airlines Cts and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order would dispose of two complaints Nos. C-44 and C-45 both of 1995 arising out of common facts. In both the complainants, Mr. R.P. Jain in the former and Dr. Tarun Kumar in the latter travelled by flight S. 2002 from Bombay to Delhi on 20.8.94 by Sahara India Airlines, OP-1. Both are stated to be orthodox and strict vegetrarian. The dinner served on the flight was marked vegetarian. The complainants took part of it and discovered that they had been served a non-vegetarian dish viz. chicken curry. They lodged protest. The Commander of the flight apologised in writing promising to take corrective action. The caterer OP-2, also acknowledged the mistake and tendered apology. About six months later the present complaints have been filed in this Commission claiming Rs. 7 lacs each with 24% interest thereon from 20.8.94 till payment. The grounds for the claim are, (i) deficiency in service, (ii) that religious sentiments of the complainants had been hurt, ...

A.C. Raha Vs. Voltas Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant purchased an air-conditioner from the respondent in May '92. The A.C. started giving unusually loud noise. Ultimately on the report of the complainant the A.C. was replaced in May '93. The complainant asked for refund of Rs. 4,000/- on account of excise duty and compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. All these prayers were declined by the D.F. on the ground that the A.C. has since been replaced and reduction in the excise duty at a later date did not justify refund of that amount to the complainant apparently on the ground that the excise duty collected from the complainant must have been paid to the Government on account of sale of the earlier A.C. made to the complainant. We find ourselves in agreement with the order passed by the D.F. After hearing the appellant and going through the order we find that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. Appellant be informed. Appeal dismissed in limine....

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Z.S. Kher

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The respondent, who was complainant before the District Forum, claimed compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- on account of OPs failure to keep his telephone in working order from mid July to mid September '93. His case was that he is retired Addl. Chief Engineer practicing as a Consultant Engineer and as a Member of the Indian Council of Arbitration. He had suffered considerable loss in his consultancy business as his clients could not contact him during the aforesaid period as the telephone was not working. The plea of the O.P. was one of denial. It was, however, admitted that a complaint was filed by the complainant on 3.9.93 when it was discovered that there was a break-down in cable and the telephone was set right on 17.3.93. 2. On a consideration of the affidavits and other material on record the District Forum held that the telephone remained out of order from mid July to mid Sept. '93. It was further held that it had not been shown by the O.P. that the fault...

S.S. Chauhan Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The facts giving rise to this complaint are that the petitioner's mother died on 11.4.92 at Village Umari, District Aligarh, UP. He sent intimation regarding her death through post-cards inviting 60 relatives and friends from Delhi, UP and Haryana. According to custom a feast and Rasam Pagri had been arranged for 22.4.92. The post cards were mailed on 13.4.92. The complainant spent about Rs. 20,000/- for the meal for guests who were expected to attend. Most of the relatives and friends failed to turn up on the ground that they failed to receive the intimation regarding the function in time. For the delay in delivery of the post cards the complainant has claimed Rs. 6,000/- as per details under various heads mentioned in para 8 of the complaint. 2. We have carefully gone through the complaint and have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant. The cause of action admittedly arose in April '92. The present complaint was filed on 7.4.95. 3. As the post-car...

Bhiwani Textile Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT789TriDel

1. These two appeals are against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in which he has confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that the appellants were not eligible for sanction of refund of central excise duty. The reason advanced by the Assistant Collector was that such sanction would amount to unjust enrichment.2. Shri R.K. Sharma, Assistant Manager of the first appellant requested adjournment on the ground that issue of unjust enrichment is pending before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The same plea was declared by Shri K.K. Anand, advocate, appearing for the second appellant. However, for reasons which will become apparent, I am of the view that the matter can be decided straightway. Therefore, after hearing the appellants' advocate and Shri R.K. Sharma and after hearing Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, DR for the department, I proceed to decide the case. The amendment to Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act provided for denial ...