Delhi Court June 1995 Judgments

Rajinder Aggarwal Vs. M/S. National Dyres and Dry Cleaners

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant had given some clothes including a Saree for dry-cleaning to the Opposite Party (O.P.). When he went to collect the same he found that the Saree had not been properly drycleaned and on the contrary it had been badly damaged. When he complained he was insulted. He sent a legal notice claiming Rs. 5,000/- as damages. This was followed by a complainant in the District Forum. 2. The plea of the O.P. was that only one Saree as distinguished from several clothes was given but that too not for dry-cleaning but only for special pressing called Charak. It was stated. that the complaint be dismissed for suppression of material facts. It was further stated that the complainant was not satisfied with the Charak carried out by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party, therefore, offered not to charge Rs. 4/- which had been agreed as Charak charges. After hearing both the parties, the District Forum dismissed the co...

S.P. Mohanty Vs. Bhasker Ch. Pattnaik

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant is an employee of the State of Bihar. He was allowed to stay in the Orissa Bhawan, New Delhi from 5.4.93 to 12.7.93 in connection with his treatment in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. During his stay he asked the telephone operator working in the Orissa Bhawan to send 11 phonograms on 16.6.93. These were however returned by the operator on 17.6.93 without communication. The appellant felt aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of the telephone operator and approached District Forum-II for compensation amounting to "Rs, 30,000/- on the ground of deficiency in service. 2. By order dated 31.1.95, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the averment did not disclose deficiency in service. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mohanty, Authorised Agent of the Appellant. 5. The plea of the opposite party before the District Forum was that the telephone facili...

Sikka Heat Treatment Centre Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT628TriDel

1. The issue involved in these cases, which have been referred to the Larger Bench, relates to the classification under the Central Excise Tariff of elastic rail clips. The appellants, herein, have claimed these goods as classifiable under 26AA(ia) Central Excise Tariff covering bars, rods, etc. and other rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections not otherwise specified upto the period 1-8-1983.Thereafter, the appellants' claim is that the goods would fall under Item 25(8) covering pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel, not elsewhere specified or under 25(11) covering angles, shapes and sections [of] iron or steel, not elsewhere specified, rolled, forged, extruded, formed, finished. The Department, on the other hand, considered the goods to be fully finished articles of iron of steel falling under Item 68 CET as goods not elsewhere specified in the tariff. The Referring Bench considered the two decisions already existed in the case of Paxma Axle & Sprin...

Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT689TriDel

1. The captioned appeal filed by M/s. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. is directed against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector, Customs (Appeals) in his order had held as under : "The appellants' representative appeared for the personal hearing on 7-8-1987 and stated that the case was heard by one officer and order was passed by the another officer of lower stage. They further stated that relevant documents were submitted to the lower authority before passing the order, therefore, requested to send the case for de novo consideration. It was for the appellants to obtain and submit all the required documents to this office. The documents produced at the appeal stage as discussed above clearly show that the assessment done on merit is in. Accordingly I reject the appeal." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants were allowed to import one number Diesel Generating set of 4000 KW rating with accessories and issued a licence accordingly. The appellants prese...

Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT450TriDel

1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held as under : "From the description in the literature as given in the catalogue of the imported product, it appears that the imported product by itself is not a chromatograph, on the contrary it is purely a microprocessor, which performs two way communication for control and operation from a central computer. It stores upto nine methods in memory while a 10th is running and contains sophisticated programming that recognizes the nature of each module plugged in, presenting only the pertinent questions during set-up. Therefore, from the description in the catalogue it is obvious that the imported product is a data system, and is a powerful micro-processor and is thus more an accessory to the central computer and not to the chromatograph itself. It view of this, its original assessment done at the Air Cargo Complex to Cus. Duty under Heading 84.51/55 was cor...

Rajenderas (India) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT321; (1995)111PLR47

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is plaintiff's application seeking injunction restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession of plot No. 10, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, and the building standing thereon or any part thereof or from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in any manner, without payment of compensation and without due process of law. (2) On 2nd April, 1991, an ad interim ex parte injunction was granted restraining the defendant from taking possession of the property in question except in due course of law. (3) Plaintiff is a company and claims to be carrying on business as promoters and builders of multi-storeyed buildings in Delhi. Plot No. 10, New Subzimandi, Azadpur, Delhi was put to auction by defendant on 5th January, 1987. Plaintiff was declared to be the highest bidder having made a bid of Rs. 25,05,000.00 . As per terms of auction, the plaintiff deposited 25% of the bid amount immediately on the fall of the hammer and balance of 75% was to be d...

Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Advance Electric Systems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT124TriDel

1. After hearing both sides we allow the application for early hearing as it was submitted before us that the Department had denied the benefit of the impugned order-in-appeal on the ground that the present appeal has been filed against the said order of the Collector (Appeals) without obtaining any stay order from the Bench and that on account of the said attitude of the Department the respondents are losing the market in the sense that the respondents have to pay higher duty demanded vide Show Cause Notice though not confirmed by the two authorities below in comparison to these....

S.N. Goenka and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT127TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 31-5-1985 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 4-4-1984 and rejected the appellant's claim for refund.2. Shri N.C. Jain, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted the issue for consideration is whether the goods imported by the appellant namely, the 'outer ring' would merit classification under Customs Tariff Heading 84.23 as interchangeable parts of machinery or 84.62(3) as held by the authority attracting the higher rate of duty.3. On going through the entire record and on hearing the submission of parties, it is found that the original authority has referred to the fact that when the goods imported were inspected and examined and representative samples were found to be 'outer ring' of Roller Bearing below 85 mm as identifiable parts of roller bearing below 85mm and specifically covered by Chapter Heading 84.62(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. When this aspect...

El. P. Em. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT681TriDel

1. The captioned appeal has been filed by M/s. El. P. Em. Industries being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order has held as under: "4.1 I have considered the appeal. I find appellants have filed a classification list, which was to be effective from 18-6-1984. They had classified stators and rotors under T.I. 30D. Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules which contemplates of lodging of a classification list by an assessee, does not permit an assessee to lodge the classification list under protest, as the rule does not prohibit an assessee from claiming the classification of the excisable goods manufactured, under any of the entries of the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, it was open to appellants to have claimed the classification of the impugned goods under T.I. 68. It is absurd to claim classification under T.I. 30D and simultaneously endorse a remark that the classification list is filed under protest. Therefore, the so-called pro...

Gargi Parsai Vs. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that Miss Gargi Parsai, the complainant, was a Principal Correspondent of the Hindustan Times at the material time. She went to U.S.A. for six months training programme at the Seattle Times, Washington. She travelled by KLM Royal Dutch Flight to U.S.A. via Europe. In the first lap, she travelled from New Delhi to Amsterdam on 3/ 4th June, 90. On 13th June, 90 she travelled from Milan (Italy) to Amsterdam by KLM Flight No. KL 342 and from there to New York by flight KL 641. She booked two accompanied baggages vide ticket No. XH 226592 and XH 226593. On reaching New York she found that only one baggage had reached there and the same had a duplicate tag attached toitnamely No. 040055. It was also in damaged condition. The other baggage which was the main suitcase was not delivered. The said suitcase contained personal effects and apparels, 22 ct. gold and diamond jewellery estimated at US dollars 2400 (equi...