Delhi Court December 1998 Judgments

Gulf Air Vs. Sachan Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant sent a consignment on freight collect basis from New Delhi to Johennesburg, South Africa on 16.12.1994 through the Gulf Air, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party. The consignment reached its destination on 20.12.1994. On 22.12.1994, the complainant requested Delhi Office of O.P. to convert freight collect to freight pre-paid. The NOC from complainants bank namely the Indian Bank required by the opposite party was produced on 21.12.1994 through O.Ps. IATA agent M/s. Indair Carriers (Pvt.) Ltd. O.P. promised to send necessary instructions to their office at Johennesburg but failed to do so with the result that the consignee could receive delivery only on payment of freight. In this process a sum of Rs. 43,887/- on account of freight was paid over twice, once by the complainants at the time of booking and second time by the consignee at the time of receiving delivery for the reason that revised instruct...

Kirpal Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT552TriDel

1. Appellants in this case have challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur dated 24-11-1995 by which a duty demand of Rs. 4,14,375/- was confirmed against them and a penalty of Rs. 20,0007- imposed. A redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- had also been demanded.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots falling under sub-heading 7206.90 of CETA, 1985. On a visit to the appellants' factory by the Central Excise Officers on 15-7-1992, physical verification of stock of MS ingots showed that there was an excess quantity of 6.950 MT of MS Ingots which had not been entered in the RG 1 Register. The same was seized. On the basis of further investigations made by the Department a SCN was issued on 7-1-1993 alleging clandestine removal of 636.525 MT of MS Ingots and demanding duty of Rs. 4,14,375/- for the said quantity of clearances and also asking the appellants to show cause why 6.950 MT of Ingots found in excess in their factory on 15-7-1992 valued at Rs. 5...

Raj Lakshmi Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT824TriDel

1. These are 5 connected appeals filed against the order-in-original, dated 31-7-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot demanding duty and imposing penalty as under :- (i) Demand amounting to Rs. 68,65,620.53 in respect of brass billets/ingots/rods/strips cleared during the period from 31-8-1984 to 30-4-1987. (ii) Confiscation of brass rods/strips weighing 2.4969 MTs Valued at Rs. 1,02,203.80. Redemption fine determined was Rs. 10,000/-.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Rajlaxmi Metals Pvt. Ltd manufacture brass billets/ingots, wrought bars, rods, squares falling under Item 26A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff/Chapter 74 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They had filed the declaration claiming exemption from licensing control under Notification No. 111/78, dated 9-5-1978.2.2 Central Excise Officers intercepted truck No. DEG 4059 at Jamnagar on 3-2-1987 and seized brass rods and strips weighing 2.4969 MTs as the same was cleared without pa...

Arvind Mills Ltd. (Ankur Vs. C.C.E. and C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC399

1. The appellant herein which is a division of Arvind Mills Ltd., had cleared fents and rags covered by-Chapters 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 during the year 1988, paying duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem in terms of Notification No 6/88-C.E., dated 19-1-1988 on the understanding that the quantity of fents and rags had to be calculated on the basis of the total clearances of man-made fabrics from the appellant's factory as well as another factory of Arvind Mills Ltd. situated at Naroda Road, Ahmedabad.2. A show cause notice dated 24-5-1989 was issued to the appellants proposing reovery of differential duty of Rs. 59,844.60 P. as the department was of the view that the exemption was available only factory-wise and therefore, what was relevant was the quantity of fents and rags based on the clearance of fabrics from the appellant's factory alone.3. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, holding that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption under ...

Chandra Ballabh and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)838; 77(1999)DLT327; 1999(48)DRJ23

Vijender Jain, J.1.Two writ petitioners aggrieved by the selection of respondent No. 2 to the post of Commissioner (Planning) by the respondent No.1 has filed the present writ petition. Mr. G.D. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that in terms of column 10 of the Regulation, the method of recruitment for the post of Commissioner (Planning) is 'by transfer on deputation/promotion failing which by direct recruitment'. Recruitment Regulation is at page-52 of the paper book. In column 11 in the case of transfer on deputation the following requirement is given: By transfer on deputation of officers holding: (i) Analogous post; (ii) Post in the scale of Rs.1800-2000 with two years service in the grade; (iii) Post in the scale of Rs. 1500-2000 with five years experience in the grade. Under the Central or State Government of Development/Planning Authorities and possessing qualifications prescribed for the post of Commissioner (Planning); the Director (Planning)...

Paramjit Sandhu Engg. Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT386TriDel

1. The Appellants herein manufactured parts of machine. They also undertook various job work like machining, grinding, milling, drilling and induction as also hardening of crank-shafts of tractors. They took out Central Excise licence on 21-3-1986. They were advised to file the classification list and they declared the aforesaid activity of job work in Item 7 of the classification list claiming as "particulars of other goods produced or manufactured and intended to be removed by the assessee." In other words, they claimed that these activities of job work done by them were not excisable. Therefore, they did not include the job charges claimed by them in the computation of aggregate clearance during the financial year in the terms of Notification No.175/86-C.E. This was also noticed by the Department as is evident from the Superintendent's letter dated 17-4-1989 wherein it was stated that the appellants herein had not included the value of job work done by them in the assessable value ...

Jai Balaji and Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC671

1. Matter called. None for the appellants appeared despite notice of hearing. There is a request from the appellants to decide the case on merits. Hence, we have heard the learned JDR.2. The question before us is regarding classification of Telescopic Brushes. Revenue has classified the same under tariff heading 85.05 as part of "Electro Magnetic Clutches'. The later product is specifically stated under tariff heading 85.05. On the other hand the appellant has urged in its memo of appeal that no doubt the product Telescopic Brushes are parts of Electromagnetic Clutches, but the latter is a part of Machine Tools. It is therefore, contended that Telescopic Brushes are parts of machine tools falling under tariff heading 84.66.3. We have considered the pleas of both the sides. We are unable to accept the pleas of the appellants for the reasons mentioned by the Revenue. Electro Magnetic Clutch being a separate specifically stated equipment/machine, the part or it has to be classified in th...

Jai Mata Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT50TriDel

1. Learned Advocate Shri A.R. Madhav Rao prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 23,45,605/- demand as duty for the period 1-4-1993 to June, 1995 against a show cause notice dated 23-6-1997. He also prays for similar treatment for penalty of equivalent amount imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excises Act, 1944. He submits that demand has been made for alleged mis-declaration of the goods manufactured by them as "Glasses for corrective spectacles in sheet/blanks also" and claimed classification under Tariff Item 7011.10. The department's objection is that sheets cannot be blanks. Blanks have to be cut subsequently and classification claimed by the applicant was wrong and by mentioning blanks after sheets with an oblique line in between misled the department.Therefore, the larger period of five years has also been invoked for demanding duty. He submits that there is no misdeclaration on the part of the applicant/appellant. They have clearly stated what they ...

Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd. Vs. Kanha Credit and Holdin ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)584; 77(1999)DLT438

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of IAs No. 4962/98 and 5157/98.2. I.A. No. 4962/98 has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for an ad interim injunction. I.A. 5157/98 is an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the ex parte injunction order dated 28.5.1998.3. The plaintiff filed the present suit under Order 37, C.P.C. for recovery of Rs. 1,68,77,403/- against the defendant No. 1 Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application (I.A. No. 4962/98) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring, encumbering or parting with possession or in any manner creating third party interest in the following properties:(i) Plot No. 375, Sector 4, Gurgaon Haryana. (ii) S-85 7 S-87, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. (iii) 16, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi. (iv) C-7, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. (v) 215/70/2/1, Sarai Shahji (P.F. Colony)...

Constable Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Both the O.As are being disposed of by a common order since they involve identical facts, reliefs and questions of law.2. Applicants, Constables under the respondent Commissioner of Police Delhi. In these two original applications are challenging the legality of A-A orders dated 4.12.91 issued by the Appellate Authority rejecting their appeals against the order dated 30.4.91 whereby the punishment of forfeiture of 2 years of their approved services permanently have been imposed on them. Consequently, they have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 4.12.91 and also issuance of directions to respondents to provide all consequential benefits.3. Brief description of the background facts is considered necessary for appreciation of the legal issues involved Constable Rajesh Kumar along with Pawan Kumar were selected for training of dogs in explosive sniffing to be started w.e.f. 1,7.89 at B.S.F. Academy. Takenpur Gwalior (M.P). They were Medically examined by the Civil Surgeo...