Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

B. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State (Through Central Bureau of Investigation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)913; 63(1996)DLT701; 1996(38)DRJ583

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) The petitioner-accused prays for bail in Rc No. 3(A)/96-ACU-1 under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420 Indian Penal Code and Sections 7,11 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c))d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (2) The prosecution case, as alleged in the Fir that the present petitioner as well as the other accused persons entered into a conspiracy with M/s. Karsan Limited with the object to cheat and frauding National Fertilizer Limited (NFL) - a company - Government of India Undertaking to the extent of $ 38 million equivalent to 133 Crores of Rupees, in the matter of import of 2.00 lakhs MTs. of Urea in as much as 100% advance payment was made contrary to the normal practice adopted in the similar contracts, without safeguarding the interests of the company by containing insurance cover against non-performance and non- delivery of urea by M/s. Karsan Ltd. and also without opening a letter of credit. It is further alleged that this petitioner has re...

Highway Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR128(Delhi); 63(1996)DLT833

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The award dated 8th September, 1988 in the arbitration matter between the petitioner and the first respondent was filed in this Court by the Sole Arbitrator Dr. B.N. Mani. (2) The petitioner and respondent No. I entered into a contract dated 8th July,1985 (for short 'original contract') by virtue of which the petitioner was to deliver 15 Hercules Industrial Platform trucks to Cos Southern Railway (for short 'the contracted stores'). The contract was to be completed by 10th November, 1985. At the request of the petitioner, however, delivery period was extended up to 31st January, 1986. inspire of the extension in the delivery period, the petitioner could supply only two platform trucks. Since the petitioner failed to supply the remaining 13 platform trucks by the extended date, the contract was terminated by the first respondent on 26th June,1986 and the remaining work was reentered at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not submit it...

Gautam Auto and Others Vs. Kiran Prabha and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This is an application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 2.5.94 passed by this Commission in Appeal No. A-340/93. The brief relevant facts are that Smt. Kiran Prabha, complainant for short, instituted a complaint in District Forum against M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., for short the manufacturer, New United Motors, the dealer, who was later on succeeded by M/s. Gautam Auto, a partnership concern as opposite party 2 and Registering Authority (Directorate of Transport) as opposite party 3. In brief, her case was that she purchased a Bajaj scooter from the dealer on 16.10.89. In the registration book issued by opposite party 3 and given to the complainant through the dealer the engine number and chassis number were wrongly mentioned and inspite of the fact that she had been making complaints and sending reminders, necessary action to rectify the mistake was not being taken. Ultimately, having failed to get any redress, the complainant instituted a complaint agains...

Collector of Customs Vs. Ind Chem Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT66TriDel

1. This is a revenue appeal alongwith Cross Objection filed by the importer. The Collector (Appeals), Madras by his Order dated 22-1-1987 has passed the following order : "A simultaneous and close reading of the Notification No. 235/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983, No. 80/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985 and Customs Notification 172/85, dated 24-5-1985 would show that the intention of the Government is to accord the same concessional assessment to parts imported for the manufacture of the electronic medical equipments as is applicable to the main equipment. Apart from the common understanding that the conditions stipulated in the Notification No. 80/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985 are applicable only to the complete items mentioned thereunder, the absence of specific mention in Notification No. 172/85-Cus., dated 24-5-1985 about the conditions stipulated in "any relevant notification" lends support to the appellants' plea that the impugned goods being parts are not governed by the condition stipulated in C...

Madhya Pradesh Polypropylene Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT730TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 28-6-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal confirming the demand of Rs. 9,64,683.38 and imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant herein. The issue relates to admissibility of Modvat on Polypropylene resin used in the metallised polyprylene film manufactured by the appellant during the period October, 1987 to March, 1989 on the basis that there was no proper declaration on the inputs p.p. resins for final product metallised film under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The demand arises also on account of denial of Modvat on evaporation boats, graphite foils, masking band for the reason that they are in the nature of equipment and appliances and tools which are excluded from the definition of term inputs in the explanation to Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules.2. We have heard Shri Gopa...

Shriram Refrigeration Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT749TriDel

1. All these appeals were head together and are being disposed off through this common order.The appellants imported galssmatic terminals for use in compressors of 230W. They claimed concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Asstt. Collector held that the printed literature did not indicate that these are goods for use in motors of 1.5 KW or above. He rejected the claim. Collector (Appeals) also held that appellants have not produced any evidence that these goods are for use with electric motors with specified rating. Hence, this appeal.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate fairly conceeded that it is not possible for them to produce the necessary evidence to substantiate their claim as the goods had already been removed.3. Ld. D.R. submits that they have to prove in terms of S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86 that the goods are for protecting electric circuits of making connections to or in electric circuits of 400W or above o...

Collr. of Cus. Vs. Milano International (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT253TriDel

1. Respondents are engaged in manufacture and export of garments. By letter dated 27-11-1990 they requested the Assistant Collector of Customs, Foreign Post Office, New Delhi, to release and deliver 18 parcels addressed to them and consigned from Japan. The parcels were found to contain Yano 56DA, 52 cms metal zippers of Japanese origin.They submitted nine invoices for the total number of 7931 zippers. The invoice value was Japanese Yen 6 per piece. The total declared value was Rs. 8317.00 On the basis of data relating to comparable imports, after show cause notice and personal hearing, the Additional Collector determined the value as Japanese Yen 56.79 per piece and arrived at the total value of Rs. 64,993.00. The duty on the enhanced value was Rs. 82,180.00 The show cause notice also proposed confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. By the order impugned in this appeal, the Additional Collector dropped the proposal of confiscation and imposition of penalty. Being aggriev...

Chief General Manager M.T.N.L. Vs. Pran Nath Kohli

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 the respondent filed a complaint before District Forum-II with the averments that his telephone went out of order on 21.4.93. Repeated complaints were lodged with the opposite party but the same failed to yield any result. The complainant was, therefore, obliged to file a complaint on 22.6.93. The telephone was set right only on 4.11.93. 2. The complaint was contested and the plea taken in the written version was that only three complaints were received from the complainant in April, 93. The same were promptly attended and the fault set-right either on the same day or the next following day. No complaint was received in the remaining period and the suggestion was that the telephone had not, in fact, gone out of order. The opposite party also filed no fault history and FNMR. The idea was to show that the calling pattern during the period in question i.e. April to November, 1993 was broadly the same, as...

Alagiri Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT47TriDel

1. By the present appeal the appellants have assailed the order of Collector, Central Excise. The Collector, in his Order-in-Original had held : "14. In view of my foregoing findings, I find that M/s. Alagiri Industries, Bangalore are liable to pay Additional Duty (handloom cess) on the HDPE fabrics coated/laminated and cleared by them during October, 1984 to October 1985. I accordingly demand from M/s Alagiri Industries, Bangalore, Additional Excise Duty (handloom cess) amounting to Rs. 57,242.87 on 30,12,782.4 sq. meters of HDPE fabrics coated/laminated, cleared during the period October, 1984 to October, 1985 under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944." 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of coated/laminated HDPE woven fabrics on job work basis.They commenced this activity in 1984. The department alleged that the appellants were clearing their goods without payment of additional duty (handloom cess) as required under the ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Larsen and Turbo Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT715TriDel

1. This is a Revenue appeal arising from the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) accepting the importer's contention that the imported item described in the Bill of Entry as "Spot Coater RSC 40 and Sheet Feeder with Tachometer and Spares" as classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.35 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as has been held by the lower authorities. The appellants had filed a refund claim for reassessment of the goods under Heading 84.35. The Assistant Collector held that spot coater, parts, sheet feeder and parts are classifiable under 84.35 as claimed to the extent granted the relief to the importer. As regards the spot coater and its parts the claim for classification under Heading 84.35 has held untenable as specific ancillary machines for printing have been mentioned in CCCN 84.35 but Lacquer & varnish coating machines do not figure herein. He has noted the catalogue of spot coater and observed that lacq...