Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments

Major Gen. D.M. Gupta Vs. Unit Trust of India and ors.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order will dispose of four appeals being Nos. A-570, A-571 and A-469 all of 1994 and A-122 of 1995. These appeals are directed against a common order of District Forum-II dated 4.7.94 filed by both the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Dayal Mohan Gupta, his wife and daughter applied for the allotment of 5000 units each under the Master Gain-92 of the Unit Trust of India. Application Forms were given at the counter of U.T.I, on 18.5.92 alongwith cheques of the request amount of Rs. 50,000/- in each case as the application money. The money was credited to the account of UTI and debited to the accounts of the said applicants on 15.6.92. The certificates were to be issued by 30th September 92. The certificates were due for listing in the Stock Exchange in February, 93. The said applicants failed to receive the certificates. About 10 days after the listing the applicants disposed of the certificates @ Rs. 11.30 net through a st...

Voltas Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT124TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the order-in-original No. 70/93, dated 30th July, 1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. The Collector has confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 2,76,33,000.00 BED and Rs. 12,69,653.00 SED being the duty demanded on the intermediate products said to have emerged in the manufacture of Insecticides/pesticides. The appellants were imposed with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 27-8-1992, which invoked the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by raising a demand of Rs. 2,89,02,653 on the following intermediate products, which are said to have been produced by the assessee, while manufacturing insecticides/pesticides viz. Phosalene, Ethion and Phorate. The department has alleged that the following intermediate products are produced by them namely :- 3. The department's contention is that the insecticides/pesticides f...

Kotah Stone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT145TriDel

1. These are two appeals involving common issues and therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Marbles in forms of Tiles and Marble blocks and slabs. They also manufactured Granite in form of tiles from Granite Blocks and Slabs. Shri Willingdon, ld.Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the cases, submitted that issues are to be considered in these cases whether cutting marble blocks and granite blocks into slabs and tiles amounts to process of manufacture and consequently marble and granite crazy which are wastage in broken pieces in a tile and uneven sizes of marbles and granite are liable to duty. He submitted that cutting of marble blocks to obtain marble slabs or tiles and similarly cutting of granite blocks into slabs and tiles does not amount to manufacture and this issue was already considered by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the case of Collector of Central Excise,...

Collector of C. Excise Vs. Procter and Gamble India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC229Tri(Delhi)

1. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad has filed this application for condonation of delay in filing his appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 44/93(H)C.E., dated 12-3-1993 passed by Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. The said order had been received by him on 16-3-1993 and the appeal should have been filed on or before 16-6-1993. The appeal which is dated 28-7-1993 was, however, received on 29-7-1993 by speed post. The delay in the filing of the appeal which is sought to be condoned is thus 43 days. In the appeal itself, in para 7, it was stated as follows :- "There is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period of 3 months for the following reasons :- (i) during the period for appeal, Collector was on long leave and the Collector holding additional charge was also transferred. (ii) this is a very important issue which has all India ramifications and it must be properly determined and should not be lost on a mere technical grou...

Baripada Spinning Mills Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT456TriDel

1. M/s. Baripada Spg. Mills, a unit of the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd., (Government of Orissa Undertaking), being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 29-8-1985, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, have filed the present appeal.2. The matter relates to the dutiability of cotton yarn, processed in the factory of production, for its clearance as plain (straight) reel hank yarn. A show cause notice was issued on 26-6-1984 to the appellants, and Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 55,588.48 was demanded on the ground that the yarn of different counts was used for manufacture of twisted yarn in the doubling machine installed in the factory, and no central excise duty was paid thereon, and the goods were cleared under exemption after packing them in the plain (straight) reel hank form. The matter was adjudicated by the AC of C. Ex., Cuttack who confirmed the demand under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafte...

Masiha Medica Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT308TriDel

1. All these appeals arise out of a common order dated 31-5-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune. The appellants herein manufacture medicaments. They claimed the exemption for Small Scale Industrial units under the Notification No. 175/86.However, the excise authorities took the view that the appellants were not eligible for exemption on the ground that the appellants' clearances were to be clubbed which those of the other appellants herein and on such clubbing the value of the total clearances exceeded the exemption limit under Notification No. 175/86. The Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad passed an adjudication order dated 26-9-1989 in the matter holding that the appellants were ineligible for the exemption on the abovesaid ground. Thereafter, the appellants started, paying duty under protest during the year 1989-90 and 1990-91. They also filed appeal against the Collector's order before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tr...

Polo Singh and Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)561; 1995(2)ARBLR303(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT463; 1995(34)DRJ373

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) Certain disputes had arisen between the parties under Agreement No.38/EE/PWD-28/DA/88-89 in the execution of the work of construction of Police Line and residential quarters for police department at Pitampura, Shakurpur, Delhi and the same were referred for adjudication to Sh.V.Nainani, Arbitrator, in the Ministry of Urban Development - Respondent No.2 herein. After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the arbitrator made and published his award on 2nd March, 1994. The said award was filed in Court and notice of filing the same was given to the parties. The respondent has filed objections to the award.(2) The arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000.00 to the petitioner under claim No.1; Rs.10,000.00 under claim No.2; Rs.2,09,494.91 paise under claim No.4; Rs.3,134.55 paise under claim No.5; Rs.36,000.00 under claim Nos.7, 8 and 11; Rs.5,732.00 under claim No.10. All other claims of the petitioner were rejected. The arbitrator has also awarded simple interes...

Hotel Kanishka Vs. Delhi Administration

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT553; [1996(73)FLR1706]; (1996)ILLJ1006Del

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.4.1995 in Civil Writ Petition 424/1990 and CM. 2606/1993, dismissing the writ petition, as having no merit. (2) The writ petition (CIVIL Writ PETITION424/1990) arose out of the order of the Industrial Tribunal No: I dated 31.7.1989 by which the Tribunal held that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the workmen/respondents was bad in law, and accordingly declared the same as invalid. (3) The industrial dispute which is the subject-matter of the present case was raised by the Union on behalf of 16 workmen after the conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 failed to yield any results. The Conciliation Officer on 21.10.1985 sent a failure report to the Appropriate Government under Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act. Acting on the report of the Conciliation Officer the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by...

Harsh Gupta and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1001; 1995(34)DRJ316

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioners call in question the action of the first respondent New Delhi Municipal Committee (now New Delhi Municipal Council) in constructing shops on the road berm/pavement of Sardar Hashmi Road. (2) The petitioners are the residents of Todarmal Road. who had taken plots from the 4th respondent on 99 years lease and had constructed residential housesthereon. The petitioners claim that illegal construction of shops is being carried out by the first respondent in the vicinity of their houses in violation of the Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973 and the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 (for short the Dda Act)., it is also asserted that the land over which the construction is being raised does not belong to the first respondent. It is further averred that the land belongs to the Govt. of India and without the permission of the 4th respondent Land & Development Officer, three shops have already been constructed and eight ...

Anil Sood Vs. Sharda Boiron Lab. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order will dispose of application dated 22.8.94 for re-calling the order of this Commission dated 18.8.94. Briefly stated the facts are that the applicant purchased one 500 Ml bottle of ALFALFA Tonic from the opposite party. It is alleged that the bottle contained foreign matter like straw, dust etc. The opposite party declined to replace the same. The applicant filed complaint before the District Forum which was registered as complaint No. 1589 of 1992. During the proceedings the District Forum sent the bottle which was sealed in presence of opposite party to the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, Ghaziabad. The said Laboratory sent a report adverse to the applicant. The applicant, therefore, prayed to the District Forum to summon Dr. P.N. Verma and the technician of Laboratory for cross-examination. The District Forum asked the applicant to deposit the necessary amount to call the aforesaid persons. The applicant declined to do so. By order dated 22.2.94, th...