Delhi Court December 1998 Judgments

Sita Ram Batri Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT318TriDel

1. In this case a duty demand of Rs. 16,610/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that he was repacking biris from bulk to retail pack, which by virtue of Note 2 to Chapter 24 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, amounts to manufacture.2. The appellant has asked for decision on merits; hence we heard the learned DR and pass our order.3. We find that the appellant was intercepted on 21-5-1990, his statement was recorded in which he deposed that he was purchasing biris in the shape of kattas and in order to save them from damage during transportation, he wraps them into packets and then into bags. In our view this will not amount to repacking from bulk to retail. The Collector has also gone by the labelling and relabelling of the biris.There is no evidence to conclude that the appellant was labelling or relabelling biris, as he has not said so in his statement and there is no other evidence to support the finding that he was labelling or rel...

Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT398TriDel

1.2 The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and export thereof under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants cleared plain shaft bearings valued at Rs. 9,25,500/- for export vide AR-4 No. 1/95-96, dated 7-8-1995 and 2/95-96, dated 7-8-1995. The appellants did not submit proof of export within the stipulated period as required vide CBEC Circular dated 26-12-1994.1.3 Therefore, the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 28-5-1995 was issued to the appellants. Pursuant to the above order dated 26-7-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Agra, a demand of Rs. 1,38,825.00 under Rule 14A of the said Rules was confirmed. The Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 14. Thereafter, the appellants herein filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Following three points have been pointed out in the impugned order as grounds for rejecting the appeal of the appellants herein :- (i) Form...

Peeru Lal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT396TriDel

1.2 On 2-3-1983, the Customs Officer acting on an information intercepted a Jonga jeep No. RRN-9716 about 20 KMs. beyond Jodhpur-Jaisalmer. On interception 479 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor Imperial Whisky valued at Rs. 19,160.00 and 24 bottles of Ruby XXX Rum (IMFL) made in India valued at Rs. 840.00 among other goods were seized by the Customs Officers inasmuch as the occupants of the Jonga Jeep, namely, S/Shri Adam Khan, Maghe Khan and Lakhe Khan were not able to produce any documentary evidence regarding legal possession of transportation of the goods. The occupants of the jeep admitted before the panchas that they had loaded the liquor from the garrage of Shri Peeru Lal, the appellant and the owner of the liquor was the appellant. They also admitted that they are residents of Dibba Para near Pakistan Border in Jaisalmer and they were going to smuggle these goods to Pakistan.1.3 As a follow up action, the residence of the appellant was also searched and some more liquor wa...

Mam Chand and Others Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)197; 1999CriLJ1512; 78(1999)DLT2

ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. By this criminal revision petition under section 397 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), the petitioners seek quashing of order dated 27 August 1996, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing framing of charge against them under section 323 read with section 34 IPC.2. On 28 May, 1994 a fight is alleged to have taken place between the petitioners on the one hand and one Raghubar Dayal and his associates on the other. Raghubar Dayal was got medical examined by the police and on his complaint the police registered a case under Section 324 read with section 34 IPC. Simultaneously,a case was also registered against Raghubar Dayal and some other persons under section 308 read with section 34 IPC. On the completion of investigations, challans were filed in both the FIRs. As per the MLC of Raghubar Dayal, he had abrasions on right hand, left knee and two linear scratches (superficial) on the left thigh, not requiring stit...

Birla Textile Technical Employees' Union (Regd.) and Ors. Vs. Taxmaco ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ181; [1999(81)FLR891]

Vijender Jain, J.1.This writ petition has been filed by Birla Textile Technical Employees Union (Regd.) aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 2 to make a reference Mr. Vohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended thatpursuant to a settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the management has agreed to pay Rs. 70/- per month as interim relief from 1st January, 1986 to all existing workers. Mr. Vohra has contended that although the petitioner Union was not a party to the settlement, however in view of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act even though petitioner was not party to the settlement, the petitioner shall still be entitled to the benefit of settlement arrived at during the currency of the conciliation proceedings before the settlement officer. Mr. Vohra has further contended that when there is a binding settlement, which has not been terminated in accordance with the procedure laid down under Secti...

Aganall Traders Limited Vs. Shri Shyam Ahuja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi369

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1.The plaintiff M/s. Agnall Oil Traders Limited is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is an authorised dealer for the sale of Maruti Vehicles and its spare parts. The defendant is also engaged in the business of trading and sale of automobile parts and allied products. The defendant had purchased goods from the plaintiff. Admittedly, all the purchases were made on credit by the defendant. It is alleged that as per the market usage and custom and defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 22 per cent per annum on the unpaid purchase. The defendant issued cheques against the purchases but most of these cheques were dishonoured. The plaintiff has placed about 26 cheques on record which were given to him by the defendant and on presentation, all these cheques were dishonoured. The defendant had reconciled his account of purchases made and confirmed the debit balance. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendant vide letter ...

Kalawati Aggarwal Vs. the Chairman, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)759; 78(1999)DLT615; 1999(48)DRJ10; 1999RLR271

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. The respondent Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited raised two bills dated April 1, 1993 and June 1, 1993 for Rs. 59,219.40 and Rs. 34,747.50 respectively against the petitioner in respect of telephone No. 2918258. The petitioner raised a dispute that the bills were excessive. The dispute was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Mukesh Mathur, G.M (T.R.) Pb. Cir-cle, Chandigarh. On September 14, 1997 after hearing the parties, the arbitrator passed an award rejecting the claim of the petitioner. While doing so he observed as follows:-'The details of the bills were never asked for by the petitioner. After hearing both the parties to the dispute and examining the written statement and the documents, it was observed that tele-phone No. 2918258-DL was working with STD facility during the disputed period. There was no fault during that period. The fortnightly meter readings during disputed period do not show any abnormality and as per the billing status a number of STD...

Goel S. Pal and anr. Vs. Rishi Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This appeal arises out of a common order of District Forum-I disposing of Case No. 1913/ 1994, Goel S. Pal v. Rishi Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Others and Case No. 1912/1994, Smt. Rita Goel v. Rishi Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Others. The main order was recorded in the case of the Goel S. Pal and as both cases arise out of identical facts, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by a common order. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that Mr. Goel S. Pal and his wife Smt. Rita Goel hereinafter referred to as the complainants were members of Rishi Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. They were expelled from membership of the Society by order of the then Administrator dated 6.1.1988 on account of persistent default in payment of the dues of the Society. The order of expulsion was duly approved by Registrar, Co- operative Societies. In the appeal before the Lt. Governor of Delhi, the complainants were granted time to...