Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.K. Sareen

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The respondent, Mr. R.K. Sareen, who was complainant before the District Forum, got his 1991 model Ambassador-Nova DL 3C/C-0216 comprehensively insured from the appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for Rs. 2,28,000/- for the period 27.11.1991 to 26.11.1992. The car met with an accident on 4.6.1992. FIR was lodged and the Insurance Company informed. The Insurance Company deputed Mr. S.P. Singh, Surveyor as well as one Technical Officer, Mr. S.L. Mehra. They inspected the vehicle and after discussion it was agreed in principle that the claim be settled on total loss basis for a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/-. The opposite party, however, failed to actually settle the claim for the agreed amount and instead appointed Mr. N.L. Ahuja, Investigator. The Company failed to settle the claim for nearly two years and the complainant, accordingly, approached District Forum-II by filings complaint. Offer of settlement which was revived on the same terms as agreed in 1992 was ...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Yatish Chander Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Yatish Chander Jain, complainant, has been a subscriber of telephone at his residence where he lives with his wife. The complainant is aged 70 plus and a retired employee of the Times of India. He had been receiving routinely low bills upto 1.3.1992 and was paying the same in time. Suddenly he received an excessive bill dated 1.5.1992 for Rs. 5,940/- which included 5366 STD/ISD calls. This was followed by the second excessive bill dated 1.7.1992 for Rs. 12,523/- including 9988 STD/ISD calls. Immediately on receipt of these bills, the complainant lodged a complaint with MTNL, hereinafter referred to as opposite party on 15.5.1992 and 15.7.1992, respectively. The opposite party agreed to investigate the matter. Ultimately by letter dated 18.12.1992, the opposite party regretted its inability to help the complainant as nothing wrong was found with the metering equipment or the manner of preparation of...

M/S. L.M.L. Limited and Others Vs. Mr. B.P. Tyagi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Briefly stated, the material facts of the case are that Mr. B.P. Tyagi, complainant, purchased a Scooter Model Select from M/s. Mangalam Agencies, Authorised Dealer of M/s. L.M.L. Ltd. on 9.11.1993 in the name of his wife Mrs. Kamal Tyagi. The Scooter started giving trouble on the third day of its purchase. The complainant took the scooter to the dealer on a number of occasions but the main problem of slipping of second and third/4th gear was not rectified. Even when it was rectified, the rectification was temporary and the problem appeared again after the scooter had been used for a brief period of 2 / 3 days. The complainant approached District Forum by filing a complaint dated 8.2.1994. The opposite parties failed to appear. The District Forum took into consideration the complainants affidavit which had not been controverted and held that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect and directed the opposite parties to replace the scooter with a new on...

Dwarka International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC480Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Dwarka International Ltd. against the Order No. S/10-2213/90 VB ACC, dated 15-11-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs, Sahar Bombay.The appellants had imported 'Condenser Microphone Cartridges from M/s.Necola Ltd., Hong Kong and filed Bill of Entry No. 009819, dated 25-4-1990 in which the price declared was US $ 0.0425 (Rs. 0.73) per piece. On verification the goods were found to be WM 034 CY Microphone cartridge of MATSUSHITA Brand originated in Japan. The price of such cartridges as per contemporary import by M/s. PIECO Ltd. from M/s.Phillips Ltd., Japan under Bill of Entry No. 007726, dated 29-2-1990 was Japanese 19.30 (Rs. 2.14 FOB) per piece. The Collector of Customs under the impugned order, directed the assessment of impugned goods on the basis of assessable value @ 19.30 per piece, confiscated the goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine amounting to Rs. 75,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- ...

Coolade Beverages Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT862TriDel

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded duty of Rs. 19,54,994.40 under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A from the party. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,61,566/- under Rule 9(2), 52A,173Q and 226 on the party. In addition, he also imposed a penalty of Rs.3 lacs on Shri Ashish Sethi, Director of the company.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters. Modvat credit became admissible on glass bottles as inputs for the manufacture of aerated waters from July, 1991. Intelligence report indicated that the assessee was selling glass bottles after availing and utilising modvat credit.Scrutiny of the records submitted by the assessee also revealed that the glass bottles were sold on higher rate in comparison to purchase rate which indicated that the glass bottles sold were in good condition and were of usable nature. It also revealed that the sold quantity of a particular branded bottle is more than purchased q...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bhavani and Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC269Tri(Delhi)

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee herein is manufacturer of rubberised self adhesive tape of cotton cloth. They filed the classification list No. 5/86 initially claiming classification under tariff sub-heading 5901.10. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the said classification be not changed to be modified to tariff heading 59.09. On adjudication, the Assistant Collector concerned vide his Order-in-Original dated 9-4-1987 held that the goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.09 after rejecting the contention of the assessee in their reply to the show cause notice regarding classification of the said product under Tariff Heading 59.01. This Order-in-Original dated 9-4-1987 remained unchallenged from either side.2. The subsequent classification list No. 1/90 effective from 2-4-1990 was filed by the assessee which was approved by the Assistant Collector as per the earlier Order-in-Original under Tariff Heading 59....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC476Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 794/92, dated 27-8-1992 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad setting aside the order-in-original passed by Assistant Collector Central Excise, Noida whereby the latter had modified the price list No. 391 effective from 24-11-1987 filed in Part II filed by the present respondent M/s.Supreme Industries Ltd., C-30 & 31, Phase-II, Noida by adding the cost of art work and cylinder making charges at the rate of Rs. 1 per kg.and Rs. 4 per kg. respectively. In taking the decision he did, the Collector (Appeals) followed the Tribunal's decision in Rexor India Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1991 (52) E.L.T. 392 and held that printing of duty paid coextended Polyethylene Multilayer Film made by them will not attract any excise duty as such printed films fall under Tariff Heading 4901.90 for which the rate of duty is nil. Accordingly he held that the cost of art work and the cost of cy...

Reva Auto Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT132TriDel

1. M/s. Reva Auto Industries (Appellants) are the manufacturers of automobile parts. They claimed exemption as applicable to small-scale units under Notification No. 175/86 in the classification list w.e.f.19-2-1990. The said exemption was denied to them and demand of duty of about Rs. 4.4 lacs confirmed on them. The present appeal challenges this demand of duty.2. The claim for small-scale exemption made by the appellant was for the year 1989-90. The claim has been rejected on the ground that the appellant had not availed of the benefit 'during the preceding year' (1988-89). The appellant's submission is that he had availed of the small-scale exemption in 1988-89 for part of the financial year i.e.upto June, 1988. Thereafter, they were advised to pay duty and following this incorrect advice they paid the duty for the rest of the financial year. The impugned order holds that as the appellant did not avail themselves of the exemption throughout the year, they would not qualify the crit...

Majestic Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT133TriDel

1. Vide show cause notice dated 23-5-1996, the Modvat credit on capital goods amounting to Rs. 3,04,639/- was sought to be denied. In his order dated 31-12-1996, the Assistant Commissioner allowed credit to the extent of Rs. 74,1147-, but disallowed credit amounting to Rs. 3,31,0197-. Although in the appeal memo, this amount is shown as contested, Shri S.V. Arya, ld. Advocate confined his submissions to Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,32,000/- shown at SI. No. 9 as also Rs. 22,5187- shown at SI. Nos. 13 and 14 in the annexure to the show cause notice.3. Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 22,5187- on 'shaving cutter' was denied on the ground that this equipment was sent to the job worker's premises for undertaking work on the inputs. This is admitted at the appellate stage also. The plea made was that Rule 57Q does not prohibit the use of capital goods in the factory of the job workers. Perusal of the said rule does not support this contention. The Rule uses the phrase "capital goods used...

Gen Power Electric Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT259TriDel

1. The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether parts of Air Conditioning Machine i.e. main section, coil section and filter section are classifiable under Heading 84.15 as per the Department or under 7308.90/7322 as claimed by the appellants.2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri S. Nunthuk, ld. JDR.3. Shri Nunthuk submitted that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Keyar Industries 1997 (91) E.L.T. 587 (Tribunal) 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision referred to above. In that case it was clearly held that Air Handling Unit, a specific part of Air Conditioning Machine, manufactured on specific orders from manufacturers of Air-conditioners, used solely or pri...