Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mahavir Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mahavir Singh, complainant for short, registered himself under 1979 HUDCO pattern scheme for L.I.G. category flat to be constructed by DDA. He was successful in the draw of lots dated 31.3.1982 and was allotted flat No. 68-A, PocketA2, Lawrence Road Delhi in April, 1983. He deposited Rs. 17.000/- (this amount is Rs. 13.600/- according to DDA) demanded by DDA. Letter of possession was issued on 2.9.1983. When the complainant went to receive possession on 21.9.1983, it was found that possession had already been delivered to one Swaran Singh. The DDA appears to have cancelled the allotment in favour of Swaran Singh who filed a Civil Suit which was ultimately decreed in his favour in July, 1991. The complainant kept on pressing the DDA for allotment of an alternative flat. On 16.11.1983 DDA wrote to the complainant that he was being allotted flat No. 98A in Pocket A2, Lawrence Road on the original terms and condi-...

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC580Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of materials/sub-systems for Digital Electronic International Gateway Exchanges imported by the appellants herein to the benefit of Notification 59/88-Cus. in terms of SI. No. (iv)3 of the Table annexed thereto - the benefit has been denied by the lower authorities for the reason that the Notification covers complete Digital International Gateway Exchange but does not cover sub-systems thereof.2. We have heard Shri Pradeep Jain, learned Advocate and Shri K.K. Jha, learned DR. The appellants imported Digital Electronic International Gateway Exchanges two and a half years prior to the date of the present import which is November, 1992 and the benefit of Notification 59/88 was extended thereto. The complete exchange provides compatible International signalling with local exchanges and with the International exchanges of distant countries. It consists of many sub-systems like main processor, PCM systems, Digital codes sender...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT650TriDel

1. The respondents filed a classification list in respect of their product Polyvinyl Butyral Resin Waste arising from imported Polyvinyl Butyral Resin Sheets during the process of manufacture of Laminated sheet glass in respect of which credit of additional duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was taken. They claimed effective rate of duty thereon as NIL under Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988. According to the department, once the Modvat credit is availed of, the goods in respect of which said credit has been taken cannot be considered to be duty paid particularly when notification conforms full exemption. Accordingly benefit in terms of Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 has been denied by the Assistant Collector.On an appeal filed by the party, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the contention of the assessee observing that the Modvat scheme is designed to meliorate the cascading incidence of Excise duty on the final product to the extent of Modvat availed and d...

Hercules Hoists Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC27Tri(Delhi)

1. Order-in-Original, dated 20-10-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of electric hoists and brake motors, is also manufacturing rotor-stator assemblies for captive consumption in the manufacture of electric hoists and filing price lists in Part vi(b) in respect of rotor-stator assemblies and price lists in Part I in respect of brake motors, the price of the former being much less than the price of the later. Price lists were approved and RT 12 assessments were being finalised from time to time. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 1-4-1985 to 28-2-1986. Show cause notice dated 27-6-1986 was issued stating that rotor-stator assembly is the same as brake motor and since the appellant was clearing brake motors to buyers and the factory gate price of brake motors was available, in respect of rotor-stator also price lists should have been filed under Part I adoptin...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Goodyear (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC559Tri(Delhi)

1. The respondents herein had removed tyres and tubes for tractors without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 161 /76, dated 21-5-1976 which grants total exemption to tyres falling under T.I. 16 of the Central Excise Tariff, subject to fulfilment of the following conditions, namely: (a) that the Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that such tyres are intended to be used as original equipment tyres by the manufacturers of agricultural tractors; (c) the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules is followed in respect of such tyres.A show cause notice dated 8th December, 1976 was issued to them proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 1,55,171.80 on the ground that the consignee M/s. Hindustan Tractors Ltd., Baroda, did not possess L-6 licence required for the removal of excisable goods without payment of duty on AR-3A in pursuance of Chapter X procedure and on the ground that the consignee had issued CT-2 forms meant for motor vehicle parts under Tariff Item 34A...

Central Scientific Instrument Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT399TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Central Scientific Instrument Corporation, Agra, the matter relates to the eligibility for the goods imported to the benefit of Notification No. 66/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, which provided concessional rate of customs duty to the component parts of the goods covered by the Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. Under Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 concessional rate of customs duty was provided to the specified medical equipment where accessories and spare parts at SI. No. (3)/(4) of the Table annexed to that Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Stereo Zoom Microscope for inspection of contact lenses were included. The appellants had imported Stereo Zoom Binocular Head DZ-240 with paired WF 10X eyepieces and with fluorescent Ring illuminator to 220V for Stereo Zoom Binocular Microscope Model DZ 240 used in inspection of contact lenses. The appellants have declared their goods as component parts of the Stereo Zoom Microscopes for inspection of co...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bhilai Engg. Corporation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT336TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the Assistant Collector competent to disallow the Modvat credit taken in terms of Rule 57-I and to demand/recover the amount utilised.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents had wrongly availed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 62,902/- in one case and Rs. 1,38,033/- in another case. The respondents contended that they were purchasing materials from disposal yards of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plants, Bhilai; that these materials, they were getting under the cover of delivery challans; that the rate of duty at which rate duty was initially paid and the amount of duty involved in the goods covered under the said delivery challans are not mentioned therein; that the disposal store is nothing but stockyard for iron and steel scrap; that they had taken Modvat credit on the items under Chapter 72/73 at minimum rate in conformity with CBEC under F. No. 267/68/88-CX. 8, dated 1-6-1969 (sic); that they claimed that the Modvat cr...

S.S. JaIn and Co. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)75; 1997(2)ARBLR551(Delhi); 71(1998)DLT614

Vijender Jain, J.(1) Award was given by the Arbitrator, Mr.C.Achuthan, Additional Legal Officer to Government of India in disputes between the petitioners and the respondents on 23.9.1991. Petitioners have moved application under Section 14(2) read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to make the award rule of the Court. Respondents filed its objection to the same. (2) MS.MONA Aneja, who is appearing for Mr. S.S. Sabharwal, Counsel for respondents, has argued that the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings on the ground that the Arbitrator ignored the fact that the claimant was registered with the Sale Tax Authority only on 22.2.1989. She has further contended that Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings while rejecting the claim of the respondents that the respondents are entitled to receive the amount on account of Clause-14 of the Schedule (ii) of the Tender Enquiry attached with the claimant's tender wherein it was specifically mentioned that the payment will be deemed t...

Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)973; 1997(2)ARBLR392(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT181; 1997(43)DRJ60

D.K. Jain, J.(1) This is respondent's (State of Madhya Pradesh) application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for recalling order of reference, made on 19 May 1993 in Suit No. 968/93 filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, whereby two arbitrators were appointed for adjudication of claims/disputes raised by the petitioner Builder/Contractor. The material facts giving rise to the filing of the application may be summarised below :- (2) For construction of Vidhan Sabha Bhawan at Bhopal, M/s.Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor), entered into a building contract with the State of Madhya Pradesh (for short the State) on 11 July, 1984. The contract Clause 29 stipulated differences/disputes arising from or in connection therewith, being decided by arbitration and the decision so given to be final, conclusive and binding on the parties. Prior to the execution of the contract, the State had pas...

Ritesh Kumar Vs. Bal Kishan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998CriLJ191; 1997(42)DRJ610; ILR1997Delhi359

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents questioning the maintainability of the petition. The preliminary objection is as follows :- 'An appeal against the order of trial Court under Section 340 refusing to make a complaint against the respondents having already been dismissed and no revision under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being permissible, Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked even for the purpose of looking into the allegations of abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice as the power comprised therein is in the nature of second revision. (2) In order to deal with the preliminary objection it is necessary to detail a few facts. An Fir was filed against the petitioner under Sections 147/148/149/427/342 Indian Penal Code in Police Station Bhajan Pura. The petitioner alleged that in connection with the F.I.R. the respondents-police officers fabricated two D.D. entries. On this ...