Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments

Major Kabal Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant was owner of 1/5th share of land comprised in Khasra No. 232 measuring 50 Bighas and 2 Biswas in the area of Village Ladha Sarai (Now South Delhi). The said land had been acquired by various Notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Competent Authority declared the complainants share to be surplus leaving a plot of 500 Sq. Metres. Even that had not been made available and the entire holding had been acquired by the State. The land which was worth not less than Rs. 10.00 crores had been acquired for a paltry sum and no enhancement had been granted. The grievance of the complainant is that he may be granted adequate compensation and handed over a plot of 500 Sq. Metres in terms of the decision of the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. L.A.O. was got served in this complaint. None, however, appeared to contest the case. 3. We have heard the complainant and Mr. R.S. Bedi, Advocate, ...

M. Tex Processors Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT153TriDel

1. This is an application for Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. A/368/97-NB, dated 7-3-1997.2. Arguing the application for Rectification of Mistake, Shri A.L.Mathur, the ld. Consultant submitted that the Applicant is a Processor and is liable to pay additional duty on processed fabrics. He submits that payment of additional duty on processed fabrics is governed by the provisions of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. He submits that there is no provision in this Act for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. He submits that in his application for hearing the Appeal early, he has specifically stated that the goods cannot be confiscated and penalty cannot be imposed. He submits that this was in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.1991 (2) Delhi Lawyers 75. He, therefore, submits that a mistake apparent has crept in the Final Order of the Tribuna...

Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT761TriDel

1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of paper based Electrical Insulators. According to them, such insulators fell for classification under CET sub-heading 8546.00. However, the department was of the view that such insulators fell under CET subheading 3920.31 and on that basis, the appellants were paying duty at the rate applicable under 3920.31. In February 1989, the Tribunal held that paper based Electrical Insulators were classifiable under CET sub-heading 8546.00 while deciding the appeals of M/s. Metrowood Engineering Works and two others. On this basis, the appellants filed three separate refund claims, all on 9-3-1989, for the periods 10-11-1986 to 29-1-1987, 3-2-1987 to 31-3-1988 and 4-8-1988 to 11-10-1988. The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector both on merits as well as on time bar and he also held that the claim of refund would be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The lower appellate authority upheld the order of the Assistant Collector on the as...

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT119TriDel

1. These three stay applications have been filed by the applicant, M/s.Gas Authority of India Ltd. seeking waiver of pre-deposit of central excise duty of Rs. 9,39,57,522.00 and of penalty of equivalent amount for the hearing of three appeals filed by them against a combined Order-in-Original No. 29 to 32/Demand/98, dated 31-3-1998 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara passed in respect of three show cause notices. The three appeals and three stay applications have been filed as three show cause notices had been issued to them.2. On behalf of the applicant, Shri V. Sridharan, learned Counsel submitted that the demand of duty has been raised on certain supplies of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) made by the applicant to their customer, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) in tankers on which applicant paid duty based on the price fixed by the Oil Pricing Committee applicable for LPG supplied by BPCL to their customers in different modes of supply. He stated that ...

Cce Vs. Vishaagar Taluka Audyogic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT621TriDel

1. In this departmental appeal the issue involved is the classification of decorative laminated sheets manufactured by the respondents.2. The Assistant Collector had classified the item under Chapter sub-Heading 3920.31 as against the classification proposed by respondents in their classification list putting it under 8546.00. The Collector (Appeals) set aside Asstt. Collector's order and held that the goods were classifiable as electric insulators under Heading 8546.00 as classified by the respondents. Dissatisfied with the said order, Department has come up in appeal before us.3. Appearing for the Revenue before us the ld. DR explained the details of the appeal and gave a brief account of the facts. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of the product known as 'paper based plastic laminated sheets - electrical insulator'. In the classification list the respondents had classified their goods under "electrical insulators of any materials" (85.46) and described the goods "as e...

Collector of Customs Vs. Printer House Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT632TriDel

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The respondents herein cleared certain goods manufactured by them under Central Excise Bond in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Later on, the same goods were reimported by them within three years of the date of exportation. Customs duty equivalent to the excise duty payable on the goods was charged by the Customs Authority at the time of reimportation. The said duty was to the tune of Rs. 2,70,375/-.2. On reconsideration the respondents filed the refund claim for the said amount of duty. They were of the view that no duty was chargeable on the goods exported under Central Excise Bond. They were entitled to duty free clearance of the goods at the time of reimportation in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it stood at that time. However, the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund).3. On appeal, the respondents succeeded. Reasoning of the lower...

Nicholas Laboratories India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT139TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed against the order-in-original dated 12-11-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants stated that the appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods such as medicines of various types classifiable under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14E till February, 1986 and thereafter under Chapter Heading 3003.19.3. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellants filed classification lists from time to time declaring their product under the aforesaid sub-heading and claiming exemption from payment of excise duty on clearances intended for supply as free samples under Notification No.48/77-C.E., dated 1-4-1977. The clinical samples were to be supplied free to hospitals, clinic etc. The said C/Lists were approved by the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector unconditionally.4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the order of the Additional Collector is without application of mi...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Modi Xerox Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT224TriDel

1. Two questions are involved in this appeal of the Revenue. (1) whether the console assembly, a part of the photocopier is classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 8537.10 as claimed by the respondents and upheld by the lower appellate authority. Revenue's contention is that it is classifiable under Tariff Heading 9009.90. (2) The refund claim filed in limitation of six months as stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act is hit by principles of unjust enrichment or not? The lower authority has held that it is not because the said principle had not been incorporated in the Customs Act at the relevant time. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard ld. JDR. We have also heard Shri R. Nambirajan for the respondents. It is not disputed that heading is specifically mentioned in Tariff Heading 85.37 and in view of this and after applying the Clause (a) to Note 2 to Section XVI, read with Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, the said product/part would be rightly classified by the low...

All India Income Tax Scheduled Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant before us is a duly registered and recognised "All India Income Tax SC/ST Employees Welfare Federation" and is aggrieved by order dated 19.12.96 by which respondents have refused to accept federation's request to correct/ alter/modify the existing seniority lists of various cadres of the "Indian Revenue Service" officers in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana and Ors. decided on 3.8.95, AIR 1996 SC 351. The applicants would also allege that the Government of India instructions under OMs dated 24.5.74 and 6.2.89 touching upon fixation of seniority for those like applicants herein are ultra vires since those instructions therein are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ghalaut (supra).2. It is the case of the applicant that the relative seniority in the case of directly recruited Income Tax Officers is governed under Rule 9 of Indian Revenue Service Rules, 1988, Rule 9 stipulat...

B.P.S. Virk (Brig.) Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ365

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The instant petition is covered by the decision of this Court dated 7th September, 1998 in C.W.P. No. 433 of 1998. The relief which was given to the petitioner in that case, thereforee, must also be available to the petitioner in the instant petition. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are as under: 2. The petitioner who was serving at New Delhi was transferred and posted at Srinagar on 2nd January, 1995. He accordingly reported for his duties at Srinagar. On 15th February, 1995, the petitioner applied for separated family accommodation for his family which he had left behind in Delhi. On 24th August, 1995, the petitioner was intimated that he had been allotted hired accommodation at Munirka. It appears that the petitioner did not accept the accommodation which was provided to him. Thereafter the respondent informed the petitioner that he had been allotted hired accommodation at Vasant Kunj. This was also not accepted by the petitioner. In March, 19...