Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IAD(Delhi)1006; 71(1998)DLT296; 1997(43)DRJ741
Mahinder Narain, J.1. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has come before us against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge which had stated that by merely a payment of Rs. 50,000/- against the total sale consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/-, it is not possible to get an order of injunction. The Hon'ble Single Judge had relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanshi Ram Vs . Om Prakash, : AIR1996SC2150 , in which the total sale consideration was Rs.16,000/- and only a sum of Rs. 2,500/- had been paid. In that case, the total consideration which had been paid was only 16 per cent of the total sale consideration. In the instant case, the amount which has been paid is only 2.27 per cent of the total sale consideration.2. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that a buyer would not be entitled to a decree for specific performance despite the fact that two Courts below directed the specific performance of the contract.3. We wanted to see the bona fides of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 23-4-1996.2. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of cement based paints and water proofing compounds. It was the Department's contention that they had wrongly availed the credit in question on the strength of the gate passes issued in favour of their Head Office at Bombay. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, however, allowed the benefit on the basis of an endorsed gate pass treating the later as a valid document although it has not been so prescribed by the Board under Rule 57H (as amended) and in terms of Notification No. 16/94, dated 30-3-1994, such gate pass is valid only if issued prior to 1-4-1994 whereas in the present case, it has been issued on 19-12-1994. The learned Commissioner has erred in relying on the orders of the Tribunal in the cases of Siyaram Platex (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 915 (Tribunal) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT184TriDel
1. The brief facts of the above appeals which arise out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi are that the assessees who are manufacturers of "Main Cable Harness", "Handle Bar Harness", "H.T. Cable Assembly" etc., specifically designed for scooters of M/s. LML Ltd., submitted classification list for the same effective from 1-4-1986 under sub-heading 8714.00 as "parts of scooters" which was approved by the Department and duty was paid and RT 12 returns were also finalised through out the financial year 1986-87.The assessees filed classification list No. 153/86-87 effective from 1-4-1987 for approval of the items under the same sub-heading and this list was approved only provisionally. A show cause notice dated 25-9-1987 was issued proposing re-classification under sub-heading 8544.00 as "cables" and proposing recovery of differential duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(73)LC472Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants imported a consignment of 5000 Filters from United Kingdom. The goods were described in the invoice as Automotive Spare Parts Filters. Unit price was shown as 0.19. The value of the consignment declared in the Bill of Entry as Rs. 21,796/- was not accepted by the Custom House and on the basis of the price charged for a consignment of 3800 Filter elements imported at Bombay. The value of the consignment was enhanced to Rs. 66,533/- applying the rate of 0.58 per filter. After hearing the appellant, the Deputy Collector of Customs, passed his order dated 4.10.1986 fixing the assessable value as Rs. 66,533/-. He confiscated the goods on the ground of under valuation but permitted their redemption subject to payment of Rs. 33,250/-. The Deputy Collector issued a further order dated 29.11.1986 terming it as an addendum to the earlier one dated 4.10.1986 referred to above in response to the request of the appellants for a speaking order in the matter of valuation: The order was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997(43)DRJ29
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This petition instituted on 16.5.1995 seeks to quash annexures P-5 (letter dated 4.12.1991 from Maj. Gen. K.N. Sardana, Additional Director, General Army Education to the petitioner), P-10 (Communication dated 12.2.1993 rejecting the petitioner's non- statutory complaint dated 14.7.1992 against Acr for period 1990/91), P-12 (Communication dated 31.3.1993 rejecting the petitioner's non-statutory complaint dated 26.11.1992 against A.C.R. for the period 1991-92) and P-20 (Communication dated 14.3.1995 by which the petitioner was informed about the result of his interview with Chief of Army Staff that he had not been found fit for promotion to higher grade). Consequently the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions against the respondents to take into consideration the special inputs (annexure P-15 and annexure P-16) in assessing his suitability for the post of Major General; to expunge the report made by Major General K.N. Sardana, and the report alleged to h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1 .Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Sikandar Dutta, complainant for short, has been subscriber of telephone No. 310359 at his residence. The telephone had STD facility. The admitted case is that on 22.2.1988, the complainant applied for barring the STD. The complainant had been getting bi-monthly bill of 400 to 600 calls which he paid in time. Suddenly he received two excessive bills, the first one was dated 1.2.1993 (for the period 15.11.92 to 15.1.93) for Rs. 2,441/-. He was allowed to deposit split bill for Rs. 795/- pending investigation. The second excessive bill was dated 1.4.93 for Rs. 8,997/- (for the period 16.1.1993 to 15.1.1993). The complainant again protested. An Inspector came to the house of the complainant and told him that STD facility had not been discontinued and that he should approach the SDO to discontinue the same. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the SDO and the Commercial Officer and ultimately STD facility was barred on 27.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT625TriDel
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR.2. This appeal arises out of a refund claim submitted by the respondent herein for Rs. 5,720.10. It relates to the period from 23-8-1985 to 18-12-1985. The claim was presented by the respondent before the Sector Officer on 12-5-1986 who, instead of returning it to the assessee, forwarded it to the Assistant Collector, the jurisdictional officer who received it on 2-12-1986. It was alleged by the respondent that supplies were being made earlier 6f the excisable goods to the buyer on the basis of a contract, the contract terminated on 22-2-1985, but supplies were continuing to be made on the understanding that fresh purchase order on fresh terms will be issued, that subsequently purchase order was issued on 30-9-1985 under which the price was slightly less than the price shown in the earlier contract, but, meanwhile, bills had been prepared fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT332TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dated 28-2-1997.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Jangir Singh, ld. JDR-who appeared for the Department.3. Appellants are challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dated 28-2-1997 by which the Commissioner withdrew permission given to the appellants under Proviso (ii) to Rule 173G(1) which provides for allowing an assessee to make a consolidated debit in the account current at the end of the day towards payment of duty if the assessee has removed more than 3000 consignments in the previous calendar year.4. Facts of the case are that the Commissioner had granted appellants permission under Rule 173G(1) [Proviso (ii)] to make a single debit entry by order dated 7-7-1995. However, by SCN dated 22-1-1997 they were asked to show cause as to why the earlier permission should not be withdrawn. After considering the reply to the sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT52TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad.2. The appellants have claimed refund of excise duty on the ground that they have paid excess duty without claiming concession in terms of Notification No. 130/83, dated 27-4-1983.3. The point to be considered in this case is whether the amount of duty paid in excess on the sugar cleared by the appellants during June, 1986 to September, 1986 at a normal rate in spite of the release order already received by them from the Directorate of Sugar which actually pertains to the additional free sale under the Incentive Scheme under Notification No. 130/83, dated 27-4-1983 is refundable under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The refund claim filed by the party has been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that notification does not provide anywhere that assessees may collect higher rate from the purchasers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 70(1997)DLT421
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Order of dismissal Annexure P-l dated 29th June, 1992 and order Annexure P-3 dated 2nd April, 1994 conveying rejection of his petition are under challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India. (2) The admitted facts are: that the petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force (for short 'BSF') on 15th April, 1988, and joined 124 Bn. BSF. He was posted to 22 Bn. Bsf on 28th January, 1989. Sixty days Earned Leave was granted to him with effect from 21st January, 1991 to 23rd March, 1991. Respondent's case is that, the petitioner did not report back to his Unit for more than 30 days - and thereby overstayed beyond the leave period. A one-man Court of enquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was constituted. Based upon the opinion of the Court of Enquiry, it is alleged that the petitioner was declared 'deemed to be a deserter'. Subsequently, a show cause notice wa...
Tag this Judgment!