Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Amu Lawyers Forum Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT744; 1996(38)DRJ728

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner Forum through its President, espousing the cause of certain section of Advocates, who claims to be aspirants and otherwise eligible for Delhi Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service') has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following directions: i) to direct respondent No.2 to enhance the upper age limit for appearance in the Delhi Judicial Service Exam, so that the incumbents or aspirants, who are otherwise eligible could appear in the said Exam. ii) to direct respondents No. 1 & 2 to declare 27% quota for the reservation of Other Backward Classes (OBC s) so that the incumbents who belong to other Backward Classes could get the benefit of such reservation provided by law. ii) to restrain respondent No.2 from holding said Exam, till the enhancement of upper age limit and till the declaration of reservation for the candidates falling under the category of OBC s to maintain uniformity amon...

Jugesh K. Saxena Vs. M/S. Ross Muranka Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts set-out in the complaint are that complainants No. 1 and 2 booked two plots and complainant No. 3 booked one flat @ Rs. 20,080/- in Swargapuri Garden Estate, Madras through their office in New Delhi. They deposited the amount. The opposite party failed to either deliver the flats or buy back the same as per terms of allotment. The complainants have claimed besides refund of the actual amount paid, interest and compensation amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- each besides litigation expenses. 2.After going through the complaint and hearing Mr. R.N. Bakshi, complainant No. 2, we are of the view that the claim put forward is grossly exaggerated. The complainants may approach the District Forum, if so advised, after putting a proper valuation on the amount of compensation. A copy of this order be sent to the complainants individually. Ordered accordingly....

Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT676TriDel

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common impugned order whereby the appeals filed, by the appellant were dismissed.2. The appellants filed refund claim for the refund of the Central Excise duty consequent on finalisation of the price list and RT 12 returns for cosmetics. The appellants sells his product through his depots situated at various places in the country. The assessee sells his products to the wholesale dealers at the rates quoted in the price list. The show cause notices were issued to the appellants as to why not the amount of refund is to be credited to the consumer welfare fund as per provisions of Section 11B and Section 11D of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner vide adjudication order, ordered the credit of amount of refund to the consumer welfare fund.The appellants filed the appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order rejected the appeals.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the appe...

Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. Indian Rayons Ind. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT381TriDel

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, whereby the Mod-vat credit is allowed under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri Nanak Chand, ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not admissible on transformer as the same is not covered under the definition of capital goods. He submitted that the capital goods are defined under explanation of Central Excise Rule 57Q and are the goods which are used for processing of goods or for bringing any change in substance for the manufacture of final products. Whereas the transformer in the present case is simply a device to set up or set down any voltage of electricity and is not machinery used for processing of any goods or used for bringing any change in the substances for final product.3. Shri Nambirajan, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in view o...

Jindal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT171TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order-in-original passed by Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh, dated 24-6-1987.2. Learned counsel stated that the only issue which survives for consideration is classification of elastic rail clips.3. This issue has already been settled by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in its Final Order Nos. E/315-316/95-B1, dated 24-5-1995 [reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal)] and they will be abiding by this decision.4. Learned DR drew attention towards the order-in-original and stated that he would like to point out in particular that initially the appellants had filed the appeal with reference to two items (1), ginning machinery parts and (2), elastic rail clips. The Larger Bench decision cited by the learned counsel covers only elastic rail clips and therefore, learned counsel may clarify the position with reference to ginning machinery parts.5. Learned counsel, in reply, stated that he has already moved an application to the...

Krisons Electronic Systems Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT514TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta confirming the demand for customs duty.2. The following are the particulars of imports of sets consisting of Plastic Extruded Casing, Die cast casing and Pressed Metal Parts of VCR from Japan, through a Singapore supplier : -30-7-1988 500 sets National US Dollar 30 per set (Rs. 428)18-8-1988 500 sets National -Ditto-19-8-1988 500 sets Funai US Dollar 28 per set (Rs. 460) The invoice prices were accepted and duty assessed and goods were cleared. Subsequently it was found that there were imports of similar goods at Singapore Dollar 70 per set CIF for National Brand and Singapore Dollar 65 per set CIF for Funai Brand. Notice was issued to the appellants to show cause why valuation should not be made on that basis and why differential duty should not be demanded. The appellants resisted the notice, but the same was ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT473TriDel

1. By the present appeal, the Commissioner, Indore has assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held: "8. The order does not survive even on merits. Applying the ratio of the cited judgements in the case of Straw Products Ltd. and that of Singh Alloys (cited supra), lancing pipe and foundry fluxes nozzles, have to be considered eligible for Modvat credit as they are not machinery, tool etc. As regards skull scrap, the Dy. Collector has clearly erred in saying that the in voices/delivery challans of the Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. stockyard, Burnpur have not been recognized to be the valid document for the purpose of taking credit. As contended by the appellant, the invoices of the integrated steel plant are acceptable as GP-1 as per Board's letter No. 1/73/70-CX. 6 dated 12-4-1971 under Rule 52A. It is further seen that the combined despatch advices and challan and bills carry a certificate on the reverse that central excise duty has been paid on the...

Paliwal Mini Steel (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT385TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 5-3-1993 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In this case, the appellants, manufacture stainless steel and other alloy steel. H.R.Flats of stainless steel had been declared as one of the inputs in the Modvat declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules which they filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on 20-9-1991 and which was acknowledged on that day. They had, however, received some inputs, prior to the filing of the declaration on 13-9-1991 and they had taken the credit thereon on 14-9-1991. This was detected by the department on checking of their monthly return RT 12 for the month of September 1991 and the Additional Commissioner, therefore, initiated proceedings by issue of Show Cause Notice on 16-12-1991 for the recovery thereof on the ground that such taking of credit prior to the filing and acknowledgement of the declaration was in violation of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules. ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Khaitan Electricals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT374TriDel

1. This is Revenue appeal against the order dated 22-7-1986, passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi in respect of rejection of the benefit of the Notification No. 46/84, dated 1-3-1984 with regard to three types of table fans namely, "Chiki", "Miki" and "Tini". The respondents are manufacturers of electric fans and they had filed the classification list seeking classification of the fans manufactured by them under the erstwhile Tariff Heading 33(1)(a) along with the benefit of the Notification. The Assistant Collector in his order held that these fans can give better air if these are hung in the corner of the walls in kitchen, bathroom or cabin. These fans are efficient and giving air downward than giving air straight as in case of table fans.On these reasons, he has held that they are required to pay duty at 10% Adv. without the benefit of the Notification rejecting the claim of classification under Tariff Item 33(1)(b). The Learned Collector has examined the literature of thes...

Aum Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT56TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras enhancing the value of imported goods from Singapore $ 0.53 per piece CIF (about Rs. 4) to US $ 0.73 per piece FOB (about Rs. 17), confiscating the goods under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 but permitting redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively on the two Bills of Entry and levying penalty of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively.Imported goods are covered by two invoices. Bills of Entry are dated 3-12-1990 and 4-1-1991. Quantities covered are 14,000 pieces and 19,000 pieces respectively. Declared value was Singapore $ 0.53 per piece CIF.Appellants produced manufacturers invoice dated 10-12-1990 to the supplier for 14,000 pieces showing the price of Singapore $ 34 FOB. The goods were of Chinese origin. The appellants supplier is at Singapore.The Collector found suspicious circumstances surrounding the manufacturers invoice as we...