Delhi Court July 1996 Judgments

N.C. SarIn Vs. Moolchand Kharaitiram Hospital and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. By this order we proposed to deal with a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Brief facts averred in the complaint are that the deceased, Smt. Vidhya Sarin, 64 retired Government School teacher, developed backache on 27.12.91. Taking no risk she was taken to Moolchand Kharaitiram Hospital, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the complainant is that even though the pain went on increasing and became unbearable, the opposite party, even after getting Smt. Vidhya Sarin admitted to the hospital, failed to give necessary treatment or to shift her to Intensive Care Unit or call a senior consultant, to attend to her problem. Because of the aforesaid acts of negligence the condition of Mst. Vidhya Sarin worsened. Ultimately she suffered cardiac arrest and died. Further case of the complainant is that no resuscitative efforts were made to revive her or to administer life saving drugs to her. On the opposite partys pointing out that the...

Sandeep Industries Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT556TriDel

1. In the present appeal the point for determination is whether the goods exported to Nepal are eligible to the concession under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are a small scale unit. They cleared certain goods for export to Nepal. The duty involved on these goods amounted to Rs. 48,407.80. The Department alleged that Notification No. 175/86 does not cover the goods cleared for export to Nepal and therefore, asked the appellant to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs. 48,407.80 should not be demanded from him. The appellant submitted that the goods were exported to Nepal and since the appellant was a small scale unit, it was entitled to clear the goods without payment of duty up to the limit prescribed under Notification No. 175/86 as amended. The appellant also submitted that the admitted position is that the goods were actually exported and since the goods exported are eligible to nil rate of duty inasmuch as they can be cl...

Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT710TriDel

1. The appellants have filed the captioned appeals being aggrieved by the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), in her order had held that "The appeals were listed for personal hearing and Shri Kulwant Sharma appeared to tender his arguments. On going through the facts of the case, I hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned orders. The Asstt. Collector relying on the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal has correctly disallowed Modvat.The adjudication Order No. 33/AC/D/88, dated 1-7-1988 is not relevant nor binding. I therefore, reject the appeals and uphold the impugned orders." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. While checking RT 12 return of the appellants for the month of Feb. 1994, the Central Excise Officers found that the appellants took Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 15,687/-.The Hot Tops are placed over ingot moulds to serve as.insulators during the manufacture of ...

Bcr Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT455TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. BCR Ltd., involving common issue.2. The short point to be considered in these appeals is whether parts of paper making machine are eligible for modvat under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Shri M.P. Devanath, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that there were conflicting decisions on the issue of eligibility of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs in question and in view of conflicting decisions the matter has been referred to Larger Bench. Larger Bench in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta and Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I and Ors. with a batch of cases, reported in 1996 (15) RLT 144 held that felt, phosphor bronze, stainless steel wire cloth, wire cloth, wire mesh and dandy cloth used in machine or machinery in the manufacture of paper and paper products are not excluded by virtue of Clause (i) of the explanation to Rule 57A and, accordingly, these inputs are eligible for modvat...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. United Phosphorous Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT676TriDel

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order dated 24th January, 1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, who has set aside the. demands confirmed by the Assistant Collector in order-in-original in respect of two show cause notices dated 2-7-1991 and 11-9-1991 to the extent of Rs. 63,73,435.91/- and Rs. 43,32,840.04/- respectively.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter No. 28, 29 and 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had manufactured white/yellow phosphorus, weighing 1,76,148.2 kgs. and cleared to their other unit situated at Vapi for the manufacture of pesticides/insecticides intermediates i.e. Phosphorus Trichloride and phosphorus penta sulphides under Chapter X procedure. In the same way they had manufactured white/yellow phosphorus weighing 2,09,244.75 kgs. and cleared in their factory i.e. PCB Plant for the manufacture of pesticides/insecticides intermediates i.e. Phosp...

Prem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT278TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 14-11-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore by which he had demanded under Rule 57-1 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, a duty of Rs. 88,189.54, being irregularly availed of Modvat credit and also imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellants. The appellants manufacture I.V. Fluids classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20 CETA. They are availing of Modvat credit. They had declared bottles as input. / The department found that there had been excess issue of the bottles and there was no corresponding production of medicines and on being asked to account for the detailed disposal of inputs, the appellants submitted that there was excess issue of bottles and because there was breakage of bottles at various stages in the process of manufacture.There were conflicting statements from the office incharge of the appellants firm and from Shri N.K. Dani, partner about the disposal of the rejected bottles. The office ...

indo Swiss Time Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT77TriDel

1. The dispute in this appeal relates to one unit of second hand Strausak Hobbing Machine of 1982 manufacture. The appellants declared the value as Rs. 1,03,614/- (Sfrs. 10,000/-). The Assistant Collector did not accept the jnvoice value, but enhanced the value to Rs. 1,70,364/-. This order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).The importers filed the present appeal.2. Though the memorandum of appeal states that there was a contract for supply of three machines of the same kind and the confirmation letter of the Chartered Engineer's certificate also refers to three machines, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that only one of the three machines was imported and other machines were not imported. This answer was stated repeatedly in response to our repeated questions. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that only one machine was imported and the invoice value of that was shown as Sfrs. 10,000/-.3. The Chartered Engineer's certificate shows that the machine was manufactu...

M/S. Hanuman Industries Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997ACJ1228; AIR1997Delhi160

ORDER1. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is carrying on the business of motor parts, Sanitary fittings, tube well sockets, pipe sockets, pipes and pipe fittings. Initially the plaintiff was carrying on the business of manufacturing motor parts and in May, 1982, the plaintiff commenced all sorts of business of manufacture and production of C.P. Fancy Bathroom fittings etc., for which brass scrap and other brass raw materials were stocked by the plaintiff in their factory at A-53, Noida, Ghaziabad. 2. The plaintiff-firm had insured their stocks of finished and semi-finished goods and raw materials pertaining to their business which were lying in their factory at the aforesaid premises with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., being defendant No. 1 through their Bankers namely, defendant No. 2 bank under Insurance Policy No. 55160-05075 55160-05075 dated 26th March, 1982, for Rs. 80,000/-.3. After the plaintiff started addition of their business of manufacture of C.P. B...

Ashok Katyal Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT442; 1996(39)DRJ376

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Challenge is laid to the constitutional validity of Section 7-B of the India Telegraph Act, 1885 which provides as under :- '7-B. Arbitration of disputes (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court. (2) The challenge is laid on the ground that the provision is discriminatory and ultra virus of the Constitution, also agai...

Directorate of Enforcement Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)678; 63(1996)DLT710; 1996(39)DRJ397

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 4.7.1996, to the extent that it permits the presence of the counsel during the interrogation of respondent No.2, passed by the learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.(2) It is suggested from the petition that the petitioner filed an application on 1.7.1996 before the Special Judge/seeking permission to interrogate Mr. Sambasiva Rao (Respondent No.2) in connection with certain remittances amounting to US$ 38 million allegedly made by respondent No. 1 to respondent No.2 for import of 200 thousand Mt of Urea in alleged contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA); that respondent No.2 has been remanded to judicial custody in Central Jail Tihar by the learned Special Judge in connection with the aforesaid matter which is being interrogated by the CBI.(3) The petition as well as the copy of the order dated 4.7.1996 aforestated, sugge...