Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments

Ms. Neeraja and Another. Vs. M/S. Ansal Housing and Construction Co. L ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, PresidentThe complainants, named above, have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring that allured by the advertisement/brochure issued by the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.), promising several benefits of the Housing Scheme, floated by the opposite party, known as Neelpadam Kunj at Vaishali, Ghaziabad, the complainants booked a two bedroom residential flat bearing No. A-1/101, First Floor, measuring 872 sq. ft. @ 595/- per sq. ft. under the payment plan B and alongwith the application made the requisite initial deposit of Rs. 51,000/- which was 10% of the price of the flat booked. It is stated that the brochure, issued by the opposite party, also contained a sketch of the flat with the dimensions of the various constituent units specifically mentioned and also other subsidiary items such as balcony, staircase, etc. thereby giving an indication as t...

Siemance Engineers Dhansukhlal R. Vora V Ersus Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The appellant has filed this appeal together with dispensation applica-tion, against Adjudication Order No. AdJ/161/AD/MHK/A of 1998, dated 13-11-1998. He has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The appeal in this case has been filed after 231 days from the date of the impugned order. Allowing sometime for postal delivery, it can be reasonably presumed that the appeal has been filed not earlier than the expiry of 221 days from the receipt of the impugned order. Under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) this Board is prohibited from entertaining the appeal if the same has been filed after 90 days from the date of the receipt of the impugned order by the appellant. It is seen from the application for condonation of delay that the appellant has admitted that the appeal has been filed after six months of the receipt of the order. He has counted initial three months for filing the appeal and further...

Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC592

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. is whether the mobile cementing unit is classifiable under Heading 84.13 as claimed by them or under Heading 87.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tarrif Act (CETA) as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri S.V. Sharma, Manager (F & A) of the Appellants, submitted that "Mobile Cementing Unit" consists of equipments like positive displacement pump, Hydralic Transmission, Cement Mixing Tanks, Graduated displacement Tank, Varijet Mixture, Densimetre, Central Panel, Operator deck assembly etc.; that all these equipments are operated from a Control Panel mounted at Deck; that it is not Motor Vehicle but it is a complex machinery designed specially for cementing operation carried during Oil exploration by ONGC and Oil India; that all these equipments are rigidly mounted on truck chassis which is only for moving these equipments from one oil well to another oil well. H...

international Ceramics Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC724

1. In these appeals filed by M/s. International Ceramics Ltd. & Shri I.C. Singhal a duty amount of Rs. 11,94,620 had been confirmed against M/s. International Ceramics Ltd. and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 had been imposed on them. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 had been imposed on Shri I.C. Singhal, Managing Director. There is nothing on record that any stay application has been filed by the appellants or any orders have been obtained from the Tribunal waiving the pre-deposit. The appeal was filed in the year 1997. Further we find that against column No. 9 of the appeal memo both No. and yes have been written. The position is misleading.2. Shri Abheshak Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellants prays for adjournment. As the provisions of Section 35F have not been complied with, both these appeals are dismissed. However, liberty is given to the appellants to pray for restoration as and when they produce proof of deposit....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Goetze India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT219TriDel

1. Arguing the application for reference, Shri M.M. Dube, ld. JDR submits that in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers, the Tribunal had already allowed a Reference Application stating that a point of law arises. He submits, in that case, the dispute was about admissibility of Modvat credit in terms of the Explanation under Rule 57A and the question whether the parts are included in exclusion clause or not. He submits that in the instant case, the Tribunal has treated Grinding wheels, Honing stones/Sticks, and graphite crucibles and Fibre Glass Filter Mesh as parts not covered by the exclusion clause as inputs. He submits that since it is again the question of parts and their coverage by the exclusion clause or otherwise, therefore, a reference may be made.2. Shri Anish Garg representative of the Respondents submits that the goods involved in the case referred to the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court are different from those in the present case. He submits that since th...

Electricity Pole Manufacturing Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT926TriDel

1. The appellant herein is a sub-division of UP State Electricity Board owned and controlled by the UP State Electricity Board constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity Act, 1948. The demand in the present case has been confirmed by clubbing of clearances of other units of UP State Electricity Board, which was not an allegation in the show cause notice, wherein the allegation was that the clearance of the appellants together with the clearances of their fabrication unit, exceeded the ceiling limit prescribed in SSI Exemption Notification No 175/86.2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the Tribunal has held vide Final Order No. A/135/98-NB, dated 5-3-1998 1999 (109) E.L.T. 595 (Tri.) that the explanation to Notification No. 175/86 itself stipulates that if there is more than one unit maintained by the State Government, then the clearances of that unit alone shall be taken for determining its eligibility to SSI exemption. In Final Order No.1676/98, dated 2-11-1998, the Tribuna...

H.E.M.A. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT736TriDel

1. In the impugned order the ld. Collector (Appeals) held that the order of the Assistant Collector is sustainable in law. The Assistant Collector in the order had held that the processed fabrics in dispute were classifiable under Heading 5804.12 and not under chapter Heading 6001.12. Being agrieved by this order, the appellants have filed this appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are the processors of knitted textile fabrics. They procured woven/knitted fabrics from the market and processed them. A dispute arose whether the fabrics were lace or knitted/fabrics. The appellants claimed that the fabrics were knitted fabrics classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 6001.12 whereas the Department held that the fabrics were lace and were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5804.12.3. The Department relied upon the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist who opined that the fabrics appeared to be lace. The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue relied o...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Bombay Metal and Alloys Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC596

1. The respondents vide letter dated 30th August, 1999 made a request to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondents.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-12-1992 passed by the Collector of Cental Excise (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed classification list in respect of their product "Fully Machined Castings of Pipe Flanges in gun metal" and claimed the classification under sub-heading 7412.20 of the Central Excise Tariff as copper tubes or pipe fittings. The adjudicating authority after issuing a show cause notice classified the goods under Heading 84.15 of the Central Excise Tariff as parts of Air-Conditioning Machines.4. The respondents filed appeal and in the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that goods in question are classifiable under Heading 7412.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.5. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant su...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Paragon Textile Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT105TriDel

1. The Respondent, vide letter dated 27-9-1999, made a request to decide the matter on merits. Therefore the appeal is being taken up for decision in the absence of the Respondents.2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the order in Appeal dated 19-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals), found that the flat bed screens are classifiable under Heading 84.42 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and that as this flat bed screen used within the factory they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 201/87-C.E.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the flat bed screens are classifiable under Heading 59.09 of the tariff as articles of textile materials. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Kohinoor Dyg. & Ptg. Works -1994 (71) E.L.T. 1043 (Tribunal). In this case the Tribunal held that Printing Frames are not article of textile but textile material gets converted into printi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Translam Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC590

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 10-4-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby learned Commissioner dropped the charge that respondents were clearing electrical laminations under the garb of Transformer cores.2. Learned Senior Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue submits that from 1-3-1993 due to budgetary changes the rate of duty was reduced from 20% to 5% on the goods falling under Tariff sub-heading 8504.00. The respondents were manufacturing electric lamination falling under 8312.00 alongwith other products. On 15-3-1993, respondents filed fresh classification list declaring the production of transformer cores falling under 8504.00 of the Tariff. He submits that thereafter respondents started clearing their electrical laminations which are liable for duty @ 20% declaring as transformer cores which were liable to duty @ 5%. He further submits that prior to 1-3-1993 there was not a single sale of transformer core by the r...