Delhi Court December 1996 Judgments

Jai Kishan Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Jai Kishan Sharma, complainant for short, was running a stone crusher at Badarpur in the year 1991-92. He had obtained a machinery breakdown policy from the United India Insurance Company Ltd. for Rs. 7 lacs for the period 9.1.91 to 8.1.92. This amount included insurance to the tune of Rs. 2.33 lacs on account of a component called Jaw Crusher with which we are concerned in this case. On 16.1.91, the Jaw Crusher breakdown. On the same day, the complainant informed the Insurance Company in writing. The Insurance Company appointed M/s. Select Surveyors on the same day. The machinery concerned was inspected and for further examination the complainant was advised to shift the Jaw Crusher to the Vishwa Karma Foundry and Engineering Works which had fabricated the machine for opening the same and seeing the condition of the two bearings. The machine was, accordingly, taken to the manufacturer and the two bearings were also found to have been damaged. Repairs w...

M.N. Gandhi Vs. M/S. East India Hotels Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Mr. M.N. Gandhi and his wife Mrs. S. Gandhi held 140 non-convertible debentures of East India Hotels Ltd. of Rs. 100/- each. These were due for redemption on 18.3.93. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that original debentures certificates were furnished to the Company on 24.6.93 under Registered Post for payment on the due date as also for transfer of shares as requested in the letter from one complainant to the other. The complainant failed to receive payment or the transfer of debentures as requested in the aforesaid letter. The complainants sent a reminder dated 1.8.93 and refund warrants were received in respect of the said debentures vide OP letter dated 22.9.93. The complainants had two grievances, (i) that they were entitled for interest from 18.8.93 to 22nd Sept.,1993, (ii) the OP having failed to transfer the debentures as requested in the letter dated 24.6.93, resulti...

Steelage Indus. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT414TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Steelage Industries Ltd., the issue for our consideration is whether the emergency ventilator, which, is fitted inter alia with an exhaust fan and alarm bell could be classified under Item No. 33(3) of the old Central Excise Tariff which cover electric fans, not otherwise specified and regulators therefor.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that the emergency ventilator system was designed for providing mainly fresh air and since the said product was performing the function of displacing air/or providing air, it performs the function of fans.3. The matter was posted for hearing on 11-12-1996. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits on the basis of their written submissions, wherein they had explained that in the manufacture of emergency ventilator, the exhaust fan brought from outside and an alarm bell was fitted and it was for use in the bank lockers. It was meant for providing fresh air and light to the customers when t...

Esbee Playing Card Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC92Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants manufactured "Playing cards" classifiable under Heading 9504.00. In their two classification lists respectively dated 1-3-1986 and 1-4-1986, they claimed the benefit of Notification No.73/86, dated 10-2-1986 which prescribed nil rate of duty on "sports goods" falling under Heading 95. They also filed a refund claim of the duty earlier paid by them when they had not availed of this notification. The Assistant Collector rejected the benefit of the subject notification in classification and also rejected the refund claim. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld this order in toto, the present appeal is before us.2. Shri V. Laxmikumaran, Advocate argued the case for the appellants.Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR represented the Revenue.3. Shri Laxmikumaran referred to the HSN which shows Playing cards as classifiable under 9504.40 as articles of table or parlour games. He stated that Bridge tournaments were sponsored by the Sports Authority of India and the Government had financed h...

indo National Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT610TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Indo National Ltd., the issue for our consideration is the eligibility of the goods, "zinc callots" to the benefit of Notification No. 152/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, when the credit of duty paid on the aluminium ingots out of which such zinc callots have been manufactured had been taken on a date subsequent to the clearance of such zinc callots. There is no dispute that the credit of the duty paid on the aluminium ingots out of which the zinc callots have been manufactured had been taken by the appellants. They have contended that when the zinc callots were removed from their factory, they had not received the duty paying documents from the MMTC and they took credit for the full quantity including the quantity used in the manufacture of zinc callots already removed on receipt of the duty paying documents from the MMTC. The adjudicating authority had held as under: "I have gone through the records of the case and also considered the submissions made by the...

Nova Steels (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC313Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals have been referred to larger Bench by the Bench consisting of Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President and Shri S.L. Peeran, Member Judicial who were of the view that the decision of a two-Member Bench in Saphire Steels (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1049 required reconsideration. The larger Bench, duly constituted, has heard both sides.2. By the common order impugned in these appeals, the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi has confirmed the demands made in the show cause notices issued to the appellants in these three appeals under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises Act, 1944.3. The appellants in the three appeals are engaged in manufacture of cold twisted deformed steel bars and rods as finished products from steel ingots or billets. Steel ingots are cut into pieces and then subjected to rolling process resulting in intermediate product described as "roughly shaped pieces" and the latter...

Prabhat Zarda Factory Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(0)ELT485TriDel

1. The appellants manufactured flavoured chewing tobacco and sold it in containers bearing a registered trade mark/brand name. Prior to 1-3-94, unmanufactured tobacco was classified under Heading 24.01 attracting nil rate of duty. Chewing tobacco including sweetened and flavoured preparations falling under Heading 2404 bearing a brand name attracted duty and the un-branded chewing tobacco attracted nil rate of duty. The appellants were, therefore, paying duty only at the time of clearance of their branded chewing tobacco. On 1-3-94, by virtue of changes introduced by the Budget, duty was imposed both on unmanufactured tobacco as well as on un-branded tobacco. Therefore, the preparations of chewing tobacco, manufactured by the appellants before being packed in cointainers bearing a brand name, falling under Heading 2404.49 was also required to pay duty. In fact in the absence of a set-off notification, duty was required to be paid at two points. Later, vide Notification No. 14/94-C.E.,...

Bhupinder Singh Vs. Janak Rani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 65(1997)DLT44

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 227 praying for setting aside and quashing of the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in appeal under Section 38 of the Rent Control Act on 18.5.1996. Vide that order, the Rent Control Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner disallowing his prayer for amendment of the written statement by withdrawing the admission already made on record. In this case, one Raj Nath Jasrai had let out the premises in his capacity as the owner thereof to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said property was sold by the said Raj Nath Jasrai in favor of the petitioner on 19.12.1991. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in para 3(b) of reply on merits in his written statement filed before the Additional Rent Controller. Later on when the matter was ripe for evidence, the petitioner moved the Additional Rent Controller for leave to amend the written statement whereby the said admission was sought to be withdra...

Ramesh Lal and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT267TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Ramesh Lal & Sons (Regd.), Ludhiana, the only issue for our consideration is whether the appellants were obliged to obtain a Central Excise Licence in terms of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or they were exempted from the operation of Rule 174 in terms of Notification No. 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-1978. The Supdt., Technical, Central Excise who adjudicated the matter had held that the appellants were required to file the declaration and were not exempted from the operation of Rule 174 of the Rules. Para 2 from his decision is reproduced below :- "2. I find from the records that the instant offence case against the party was booked for non filing of the declaration as required under notification No. 111/78-C.E. (as amended) to the jurisidictional Central Excise authorities. The Advocate in reply to the show cause notice has contended that they are manufacturer of the sewing machines which are exempt from the operation of the payment of Centr...

Shri Ram Pistons and Rings Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT598TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Additional Collector of Customs dated 6-1-1987.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants manufacture inter alia, pistons, rings and pins for motor vehicles. For this purpose they use various types of alloys for determining the composition of the various metals in the alloy. The appellants have imported one complete set of '86-516 Jarrel-Asn Series 7000 Model 750V Atomcomp Director Reading Vacuum Spectrometer' with essential accessories from USA. This Spectrometer has an integrated built-in computer and the dispute has arisen regarding its classification.3. It was the appellants' contention that this imported item was required to be assessed as a whole (i.e. as one unit along with the essential accessories including Apple computer). The Deptt. has on the other hand taken this stand that the Spectrometer and Computer were separate entities and were therefore required to be assessed separately on merits.4. They had produced invoice, packing list ...