Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Kashyap Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The complainant has filed the abovementioned five complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of five shops/kiosks allotted to him by opposite party No. 1 in auction. Since the parties to all the abovementioned complaints are the same and the issues of fact and law involved are common in all the 5 complaints, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties have been finally heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the complainant had participated in an auction held by opposite party 1/DDA on 7.8.1996 for the grant of conveyance-cum-perpetual lease hold rights in respect of built-up shops/kiosks allotted in District Park, Janakpuri (Musical Fountain), Delhi on the basis of terms and conditions of auction under the Delhi Development (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulations, 1968. The complainants bid for...

Shree Ganpati Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT843TriDel

1. The above application has been filed for stay of operation of the impugned order determining the annual capacity of the Independent Processors in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. It is the submission of the applicants who have asked for a decision on merits that the Commissioner has included the length of the galleries in the length of the chambers for arriving at the annual capacity, while the length of the galleries is not required to be included because it serves no role in the processing of textiles.2. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records, we find that there are two contrary views already expressed by the Tribunal on this issue -whether the length of galleries is required to be included in the length of the Hot Air Chambers of the Stenters - in the case of CM.Prints Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (40) RLT 220], the Tribunal has held that the length of the gallery is to be taken into account for the purp...

Sheet Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT271TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sheet Metal Industries, the issue involved is whether the machine imported by them is Tool Room Precision Coordinate Jig Boring Machine as claimed by them or Universal Milling machine as held by the Collector of Customs, under the impugned Order.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate, submitted that the Appellants used the impugned machines mainly for precision boring and micro boring operation; that the machine was essentially used for Jig Boring of top and bottom plates of insert bushes for press tools; that the machine was also used for Jig Boring of punch plates, die plates and strippers; that the machine was cleared on payment of duty by Bombay Customs classifying the same under Heading No. 84.45/48 and extending the benefit of Notification No. 40/78; that under the impugned Order, the Collector has held that the imported machine was not Jig Boring machine and was not covered by OGL as well as Notification No. 40/78-Cus; that parts imported by them are ...

Cce Vs. Overseas Trading Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(95)LC298Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in present appeal, preferred by Revenue, is whether excise duty is leviable on untrimmed copper sheet manufactured by M/s. Overseas Trading Corporation.2. M/s. Overseas Trading Corporation have, under their letter dt.3.10.2000, requested to decide the matter as per Cross-Objections filed by them. We, therefore, heard Shri M.P. Singh, Ld. D.R. and perused the records. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 22/CE/96 dt. 7.2.1996, ordered that sheets and circles of copper and alloys in untrimmed condition, falling under heading 74.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, are chargeable to duty as the final product i.e. sheets and circles in trimmed condition are cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 135/94-CE, dt. 27.10.1994; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, set aside the Adjudication Order relying upon the decision in the case of M/s. Lohia Sheet Products v. CCE 1999 (3...

Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT704TriDel

1. Government of India imposed anti-dumping duty, inter alia, on High Impact Polystyrene (hereinafter referred to as HIPS) imported from Hong Kong by Notification No. 42/2000, dated 11-4-2000. HIPS comes in several grades including Environmental Stress Crack Resistant grade (hereinafter referred to as ESCR grade).2. Appellant before us, Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd. is a company registered in Hong Kong. This company is engaged in marketing Polystyrene manufactured by Dow Chemical Hong Kong Ltd. which manufactures HIPS at its factory situated in Tsing Yi in Hong Kong.They challenge the notification issued by Government of India imposing anti-dumping duty on HIPS exported from Hong Kong. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant were that ESCR grade HIPS exported by them is not a like article manufactured in India; that there was no injury caused to any Indian manufacturer on account of the export of ESCR grade HIPS by the appellant; that the method adopt...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Smt. Reeta Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 16th June, 2000, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1984/99 - entitled Smt. Reeta Sharma v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Reeta Sharma had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act, averring that she had applied for the installation of electricity connection in the premises constructed on a plot of land, measuring 180 sq. yards, belonging to her, situated at D-4, Gali No. 4, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. It was stated in the complaint that the abovesaid plot was separately demarcated, having a separate entry and a separate boundary wall. It was further stated that the officials of the appellant, after verification sanctioned the...