Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Suraj Bhan

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 26.4.1999, passed by District Forum No.-I in Complaint Case No. 932/96entitled Shri Suraj Bhan v. The Assistant Finance Officer, DESU and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the respondent had occupied premises, bearing No. 2695, Plot No. 11, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi on rental basis w.e.f. 25.12.1988. As the abovesaid premises, taken on rent, by the respondent, had no electric connection, the respondent applied for an electric connection and a sum of Rs. 750/- was deposited by the respondent with the appellant on 25.1.1989. The case of the respondent, before the District Forum, was that though meter was installed on 16.3.1989 but the ...

Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC90

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants imported certain goods under quantity based advance licence to meet their export obligation in the present case in the form of export of motor cycles. At the time of export of motor cycles, the appellants reversed Modvat credit taken in respect of certain inputs indigenously procured to manufacture the motor cycles at the instance of Customs authorities. However, the appellants without filing a refund claim or without obtaining specific permission from the Customs authorities re-credited the amount of Modvat credit. The authorities below confirmed the demand of the amount recreated by the appellants and hence the appeal.2. Arguing the case, Ms. Smita Ekka, Manager Law of the appellant firm, submits that the only error, if any, committed by the appellants was that the appellants did not seek and obtain special permissions of the Asstt. Commissioner for recrediting the amount. She submits that there was no dispute that M...

Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT275TriDel

1. Both the appeals are directed against the same "Final Findings" dated 24th December, 1998 - of the Designated Authority with regard to imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported Acrylic Fibre from Japan, Portugal, Spain and Italy. M/s Marubeni Corporation are the foreign exporters from Japan while M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. are Indian importers of the goods.2. The Designated Authority gave the following findings in the order dated 24th December, 1998 :- "54. The Authority, after considering the foregoing, concludes that : (a) Acrylic fibre has been exported from Japan, Portugal, Spain and Italy has been exported to India, below its normal value resulting in dumping of acrylic fibre; (b) the domestic industry has suffered material injury; (c) the causal link between dumping and injury is established. 55. The Authority confirms the preliminary findings with regard to imposition of Anti-dumping duty and recommends imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on all imports of acryl...

Magnum International Trading Co. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT696TriDel

1. M/s. Magnum International Trading Co. Ltd. have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original, dated 25-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants filed a Bill of Entry No. 203011, dated 11-1-1995 for seeking clearance of Rolls Royce Car Model 1994 sent by M/s. Jack Barclay Ltd., London. The car was released on payment of duty based on the declaration filed by them regarding value and other particulars of car against Import licence No.P/K/05466 V, dated 30-11-1993. Subsequently the car was seized as the investigation revealed that the CIF Value should be Rs. 53,20,987/- instead of Rs. 43,95,712/- declared by the Appellants and that the Import Licence was short by Rs. 9,25,275/-. The Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order, demanded Customs duty amounting to Rs. 12,28,731/-, imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakh and confiscated the car with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 15 lakh, holding ...

Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT506TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. is whether the amount of refund can be sanctioned without producing the duty paying documents by them, and whether the refund is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, submitted that the refund claim pertains to the period from 1-3-1970 to 30-9-1974 that there was a dispute regarding inclusion of the freight charges for transporting filled bottles of aerated water from the factory and for transporting empty bottles back to the factory premises; that the Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction of cost of transportation of excisable goods from assessable value but did not allow the cost of transportation of empty bottles; that finally the Appellate Tribunal vide Order No. 155/91-A, dated 15-3-1991 allowed their appeal for not including the cost of transportation in the assessable value.Subsequently, they filed a refund claim which has been rejected by the Commissio...

Tisco Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT173TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Tata Iron Steel Co.Ltd. (TISCO) is whether Expoxy Polyster Coated Sheets /strips are classifiable under sub-heading 7212.31 and whether slitter edges and side trims are classifiable under sub-heading 7203.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by them or under sub-heading Nos. 7212.39 and 7212.31 respectively, as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri Ravindra Narain, learned advocate submitted that sub-heading 7212.31 covers lacquered/varnished sheets made from hot rolled sheets produced in India and their product Expoxy polyster coated sheets/strips is squarely covered by this sub-heading since these are made out of hot rolled strips. He further submitted that if the impugned product is not considered to be lacquered or varnished, as it is plastic coated, it will not be classifiable under residuary sub-heading 7212.39 as the main heading covers only "Lacquered sheets, varnished sh...

Swelore Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT481TriDel

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of power driven pumps falling under CET Heading 84.13. They also manufacture spares and accessories required in the assembly of PD pumps in their factory.Accordingly, they filed classification lists No. 2/88-89 effective from 1-4-1988 and No. 1/89-90 effective from 1-4-1989 classifying spares and accessories for pumps under Heading 84.13 chargeable to duty at the rate of 5%. It appeared to the Department that spares and accessories would be appropriately classifiable under their respective headings in view of note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 and hence show cause notices for modification of classification lists as well as for recovery of duty short levied, were issued. The Assistant Collector applied Rule 3A of the Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff and Note 2(a) of Section XVI and classified the items in dispute as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------...

Charan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)111; [2000(86)FLR295]

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. This is the writ petition filed by the petitioner impugning same order of transfer dated 13th August, 1999. Petitioner is working as Havaldar in Central Reserve Police Force on 19th June, 1998. He was posted in Group Centre, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi in pursuance to order dated 15th April, 1998 by respondent No. 2 the respondents issued order dated 14th August, 1999 whereby 30 persons were transferred from Group Centre Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi to different battalions. Name of the petitioners appears at Sl No. 13 as per which he is transferred to 112 Battalion. He earlier filed Civil Writ No. 5405/99 directing the respondents to decide petitioners representation on merits within four weeks and not to relieve him till then. This order dated 17.9.99 reads as under :- CW No. 5405/99 and CM No. 9814/99 'Notice. Mr. Phoolka accepts notice. With the consent of theparties, the matter is heard and finally disposed of. This petition has been filed by the petitioner is tran...

S.P. Sharma Vs. the All India Council for Technical Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)290; 85(2000)DLT109; 2000(56)DRJ199

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. 2. Since short point is involved, with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 3. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1 as Consultant (Legal) as an outside expert on full time basis as non-pensioner. Appointment letter dated 15th December, 1997 was issued to the petitioner fixing his consolidated fees as Rs. 4000/-. Para 5 of the said appointment letter mentioned that it would be subject to other terms and conditions as may be enforced by the AICTE Secretary from time to time. Petitioner made representation dated 2nd February, 1998 for enhancing his consolidated fees from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- as per rules. This representation was considered by the respondents in view DOPT letter No. 16011/5/93/Estt. (Allow) dated 21st December, 1993 which specified that consolidated fee be increased subject to a ceiling of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Accordingly it was decided to enhance the fee of the petitioner from Rs. ...

Mukesh Kumar Vs. P.O., Labour Court No. Ix (Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)339; 84(2000)DLT256

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. Ex parte award was passed against the petitioner. Perusal of the said award dated 3.11.1995 shows that when the case was listed on 3.11.1995, the workman had appeared in the morning. However, since he did not appear thereafter till 2.15 p.m. the award was passed against him. The petitioner moved the application on the same date i.e. on 3.11.1995 itself stating that he could not appear in time and requested for giving short date. It was followed by another application dated 20th February, 1996. The Labour Court dismissed the application dated 20th February, 1996 by order dated 5th March, 1998 on the ground that it had become functus officio. However, the Labour Court lost sight of the fact that first application was moved on 3.11.1995 itself which is annexed to this paper book as Annexure P-3 and today Mr. Aggarwal has produced certified copy of this application also. Sin...