Delhi Court December 1998 Judgments

Poonam Cargo Services Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT696TriDel

1. By the impugned order dated 31-8-1998, the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi has held as under : Whereas an enquiry against M/s. Poonam Cargo Services, E-147, 2nd floor, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 holder of regular CHA licence No. 35/87 valid upto 5-5-2001 of Delhi Custom House is contemplated with regard to clearances of I.V. Cannula valued at Rs. 1,22,60,000/- for misclas-sification, misdeclaratfon as "Disposable and non disposable cannula for aorta, Vene Cause and similar veins and blood vessels" in terms of G.E. No. 121 notification No. 23/98-Cus. with a view to wrongly avail benefit of exemption notification and clear goods at Nil rate of duty on the Bill of Entries No. 218025 dated 21-8-1998,110737 dated 29-7-1998 and 215634 dated 1-8-1998. Over and .above this, the statement of Shri Sunil Nanda and Sh. Rajeev Malik was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in which they admitted the facts of misclassification; misdeclaration on the said Bill of Entries file...

Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soft drink concentrates which were earlier classified under Chapter Heading 33.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and subsequently under Chapter 21.They are also owners of the brand name "Lehar". They sell the concentrates to bottlers under Franchise agreement which permits the bottlers to produce soft drinks out of concentrates purchased from the appellants sell the same in an agreed area under the brand name of the appellants. The appellants, apart from the price of the concentrate, also received royalty at the rate of 2.75% of the maximum retail price of each beverage bottle cleared by the bottlers from their plant. The appellants also carry on advertisement and sales promotion activity and as per agreement, the bottlers are also called upon to carry on the advertisement and sales promotion activity for the beverages. The appellants submitted price lists for the period 1-4-93 to 31-3-95 in which they did not include the royalty c...

S.P.K. Gupta Vs. Anz Grindlays Bank Plc

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that on 30th September, 1992 the Lloyd Bank, London sent telegraph i.e. transfer instructions to its correspondent Bank, ANZ Grindlays Bank, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party (OP) for transferring 1,143.61 in favour of Mr. S.P.K. Gupta, Account No. CS 24863. The instructions were received by the opposite partys Bombay office on 1.10.1992. It is somewhat intriguing that whereas the instructions from London to Bombay were received the next day, from Bombay to Delhi office of opposite party, it took nine days and is stated to have been received by Delhi office of opposite party on 9.10.1992. It appears that the complainant had his Account SBI main branch New Delhi situated not far from the Delhi Branch of opposite party. The opposite party Bank sent letter dated 9.10.1992 to SBI by ordinary mail on 13.10.1992. Anhexure-IV tiled by the ANZ is a standard form of the letters to be addressed in such cases. After four queries...

Mahashian Di Hatti (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT589TriDel

1. The very short point involved in this appeal is the classification of Red Chilli Powder and Amchur under the Central Excise Tariff. The Department classified these as spices under subheading 0903.10. The appellants submitted that these spices are condiments which are not listed anywhere under the tariff and are therefore, no excisable products at all. In doing so, they have relied upon certain judgments pertaining to Sales-tax as also extracts from certain books.2. We have heard Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.S. Sangia, learned DR for the Department. It is well settled that the HSN should be referred to for guidance for the interpretation of various headings under the CETA, 1985. Chapter 9 of the HSN covers Coffee, Tea and Spices. In the notes giving the scope of the tariff entry, the following is shown to be covered under this Chapter : "Spices, i.e. a group of vegetable products (including seeds etc) rich in essential oils and aromatic prin...

M/S. Puneet Industries Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Puneet Industries (P) Ltd., complainant, obtained three cover notes ensuring against fire, (a) stocks, (b) building and (c) machinery break-down insurance. Claim with regard to (a) and (b) have been settled. The only surviving question is with regard to machinery break-down insurance for Rs. 3,60,000/- for the period 9.7.1993 to 8.7.1994. Admittedly the prescribed premium had been paid. There was a serious fire in the factory on 27.11.1993 resulting, inter alia, damage to the voltage stablizer due to short circuiting/fire. The complainant informed the Insurance Company by sending a telegram and the Insurance Company appointed M/s. Adarsh Associates as Surveyor. The Surveyor submitted his report dated 11.11.1994. A copy of the report is available at page 75 of the paper-book. The relevant figures are mentioned at page 79 (internal page 5) of the report. The conclusion reached by the Surveyor was that the Insurance Compan...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maheshwari Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT1021TriDel

1. In the impugned Order, the ld. Collector (Appeals) held that ATIRA, Ahmedabad is an independent testing laboratory recognised by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. The Asst.Collector should have not ignored this report merely on the ground that ATIRA failed to mention Central Excise Seals and full particulars of the sample. The ld. Collector (Appeals) also observed that in view of the above facts and the fact that the Asst. Collector did not get the sample re-tested, T do not find any justification to ignore the test results of ATIRA, according to which the sample was found to contain 48% Polyester and 52% polynosic'. He held that on the basis of this test result, the yarn in question was correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 18 III(ii), chargeable to basic duty at a rate of Rs. 9/- per kg. The ld. Collector (Appeals), therefore, set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal. Being aggrieved by this order, Revenue has filed the captioned Appeal.2....

Ram Prakash Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, appointed as a voluntary ticket collector, is aggrieved by respondents action in disengaging his services, although cases of other voluntary ticket collectors. Similarly placed, have been favourably considered by the respondents. As per the applicant, his case is well covered in the terms of the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of S.K. Mukherjee and Ors. v. UOI (OA No. 10/85), Mohd. Abdul Hussain and Ors. v. UOI (OA 215/86), and AC Jha and Ors. v. UOI (OA 214/86) all decided by the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal on 25.3.86 and 3.12.86 respectively. Judgment in the case of S.P. Mukherjee (supra) has been reported in AIR 1986(2) page 7. SLPs filed by the respondent-Railways against the decisions of this Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs have also been dismissed.2. Applicant would argue that though the Railway Administration has implemented the judgment, they have failed to extend the benefit of the same to the applicant herein illegally. Applicant has, therefore, pr...

Mohd. Zareeq Khan and Others Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)161

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition were students of Jamia Millia Islamia, respondent in the writ petition. They were pursuing their studies in different courses. Disciplinary action was taken against them and in accordance with the decision of the Discipline Committee, the Vice-Chancellor expelled them from the University for one academic year (1997-98) and a campus ban was imposed on them for the said duration with immediate effect. On expiry of the period of expulsion the petitioners sought re-admission in the academic session 1998-99. Since the respondent refused to re-admit the etitioners in the courses which were being undergone by them prior to the above mentioned expulsion, the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent University to give admission to the petitioners in the respective courses. 2. Lt. Gen. Zaki (Retd.), Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia has filed an affidavit in reply to the notice issued to...

Sushma Shukla Pandey Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)37; 77(1999)DLT833; 1999(49)DRJ95

Cyriad Joseph, J.1.The petitioner applied for admission to Bachelor of Fine Arts (Art Education) course in Jamia Millia Islamia. She participated in the written tests and interview and she was placed at Seriall No. 7 in the merit list. However, the petitioner was denied admission to the course. Assuming that admission was denied on the ground of break in the continuity of her educa-tion, the petitioner got a legal notice issued to the respondent Jamia Millia Islamia on 7-8-1998. The respondent replied to the legal notice and informed the petitioner that she was denied admission on the ground of overage. In the reply dated 21-8-1998 the respondent also pointed out that as per paragraph 6.3.3 of the Prospectus of the Faculty of Education for the Academic year 1998-99 candidates applying for Bachelor of Fine Arts (Art Education) course should not be more than 23 years of age on 1-10-1998. It was also pointed out that as per the application form submitted by the petitioner, the date of bir...

Shyamal Kumar Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT730

Cyriac Joseph, J.1. According to the averments of the petitioner he was a regular student of LL.B. Course at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi for the academic session 1995-98. He passed in 29 out of 30 papers of the LL.B. Course and failed in the remaining paper Jurisprudence i. Hence he had to appear in the supplementary examination for the said paper. The result of the supplementary examination was declared on 24.8.1998 and the petitioner was declared to have passed in the supplementary examination. In the meanwhile the petitioner had applied for admission to LL.M. Course for the session 1998-2000 and had appeared in the admission test. He secured rank No. 15 in the merit list. There were 20 seats in the general category. The first admission list of 20 candidates of the general category was notified on 27th July, 1998. The candidates whose names had appeared in the first list published on 27th July, 1998 were directed to submit the duly filled up admission forms...