Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Shri Umed Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)679; 91(2001)DLT126; 2001(3)RAJ228

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The award dated 30th June, 1992, which was registered as a suit has been sought to be made rule of the Court.2. The respondent-DDA has challenged the award mainly in respect of claim Nos.4,5,6 & 8. As regards claim No.4, the petitioner's claim of Rs.2,05,000/- on account of payment under clause 10(c) of the agreement due to statutory increase in price in material and wages was allowed on the basis of the increase in wages for the labour as per Government's statutory orders and in accordance with the provision of clause 19 of the agreement.3. According to the counsel for the respondent clause 10(c) provided that if during the progress of the work, the price of any material incorporated in the work and/or wages, labour increases as a direct result of the coming into force of any fresh law or statutory rule or order and such increase exceeds 10% of the price and/or wages prevailing at the time of receipt of the tender for the work, the contractor shall for the purpo...

Ganpat Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ630

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. These three appeals have been preferred under Section 54 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of Shri Padam Singh, additional District Judge, Delhi answering three separate references under Section 18 of the Act and thereby determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. The claimants/appellants felling aggrieved have sought further enhancement in the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per bigha.2. 123 bighas 4 bids was of land situated in village Nanglor-Jat, Delhi was notified for being acquired for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi through notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 22.8.1973.It was followed by declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 31.7.1976. Collector proceeded further but before award could be announced, the acquiring Department informed him that only 55 bighas 11 bids was of land, which was lying vacan...

Dr. J.P. Goel Vs. Smt. Pushpa Verma

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 8.12.2000, passed by District Forum No.-IV, in Complaint Case No. 476/1999 - entitled Smt. Pushpa Verma v. Dr. J.P. Goel. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Pushpa Verma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that the respondent was under the treatment of the appellant, who advised the respondent to get her right eye operated at her residence by him. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that as advised by the appellant, the operation on the right eye of the respondent was performed by the appellant on 23.4.1999 at the residence of the respondent and for the above said operation, the appellant charged an amount of Rs. 3,000/- by way of fees. It was state...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Mewar Polytex (P) Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this application for referring the following question of law: "(i) Whether goods transferred by M/s. IPCL, Jaipur Depot of the manufacture to their own stockist are internal matters of M/s. IPCL & writing on the back of gate pass transferring goods to stockist is not an endorsement. (ii) Whether Board's Circular prescribing gate pass as duty document for availing of credit issued under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is an extended piece of legislation & whether the gate pass having more than two endorsement can be treated as a valid duty paying document".3. The contention of the Revenue is that when Board Circular prescribes only two endorsements in respect of Gate passes, therefore, the question of the Tribunal allowing the MODVAT credit on the Gate passes which are endorsed more than twice contrary to the provisions of the Board Circular. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Sunrise Technofab Pvt. Ltd., report...

M/S. Ashoka Dyeing and Finishing Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of man-made and knitted acrylic fabric. On 13.10.95, the Central Excise offices visited the factory of the appellants and on verification of the stock it was found that the raw-material 375 mtrs.of man-made grey fabric was found short and man-made fabric weighing 2968 kg. was found in excess to their statutory record. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of man-made fabric found excess and for demand of duty on the goods, found short, and imposing a penalty.3. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of 2968 kg. of man-made fabric under Rule 173 Q of the Rules and gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. one lakh. A demand of Rs. 2,300/- was confirmed in respect of the goods found sho...

M/S. Malt Co. (India) Limited, Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants were job workers at the relevant time. They used to manufacture Barley Malt and Malt extract on job work basis out of unprocessed malt extract supplied by principal manufacturers namely M/s Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Ltd. The inputs for the manufacture of the said products included barrels (Containers) supplied by the principal manufacturers. While clearing the above products to the principal manufacturers, the appellants paid Central Excise duty by availing Modvat credit on the barrels. The Department alleged that the cost of barrels were not included in the assessable value of the final products cleared by them to the principal manufacturers and, therefore, directed the party to reverse the Modvat credit availed on barrels amounting to Rs. 1,34,430.00. They also proposed to impose penalty. The appellants contested the Department's proposed action. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit taken on barrels to the aforesaid extent for the re...

M/S. Kushal Bagh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT102TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of their Gangshaw Machine was denied on the ground that the appellant filed declaration after 3 months from the date of receipt of the machine.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that on 15.5.94 appellant filed a declaration for availing the benefit of MODVAT credit on capital goods whereby they declared parts of Gangshaw machine and vide letter dated 14.6.94, the appellant filed a detailed list of capital goods on which they intend to take credit and at Serial number 7 of the list, was the machine in question. He submits that thereafter, the Revenue wrote that the declaration is in respect of Gangshaw Machine was not proper and in response to this, appellant filed afresh declared on 15.7.94 in respect of Gangshaw machine.Learned Counsel submits that Rules 57G and 57T of Central Excise Rules is amended vide Notification N. 7/99-CE(NT) dated 9.2.99. T...

M/S. Ganpati Sangmammer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver for penalty of Rs. 7,000/- imposed under Section 173Q of Central Excise Rules.2. Learned Counsel submits that the only allegation against the applicants is that the final product was not accounted in their RG-I record. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Raipur, reported in 2000 (91) ECR 569 (Tribunal) and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that where the goods were not accounted for in RG-I- under Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed.3. In this case the final product was not accounted in their satutory record and goods were confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine. The penalty of Rs. 7,000/- was also imposed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of penalty imposed. applicants are directed to ...

M/S. Janta Ball Bearing Store Vs. C.C.E. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT220TriDel

1. The brief facts in this case are that the appellants, M/s. Janta Ball Bearing Store, Kashmere Gate, Delhi were registered as a Trader under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, they were entitled to issue invoices under Rule 57GG to pass on modvat credit to their customers. They availed modvat credit of Rs.50,310/- on the strength of the duplicate copy of the invoice No.942278 dt.22.10.94 issued by M/s. HMT Bearing Ltd., Hyderabad who are the manufacturers of the Ball Bearings. The credit was availed by them on the strength of this invoice during the month of February, 1995 and they filed their monthly return of Feb., 1995 with the Central Excise authority on 7.3.95. They issued a sale invoice No.21 dt. 1.2.95 under Rule 57GG and passed on the modvat credit of the aforestated amount in favour of M/s. G.R. Mechanical (P) Ltd., New Delhi. In August, 1995, they were asked to produce duplicate copy of the purchase issued by M/s. HMT Bearings Ltd., Hyderabad on the ...

M/S. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of two stay application moved by the appellants in Appeal No&.E/3537 & 3538/2000-C which have been preferred against the common impugned order in appeals of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.9.2000 denying the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 and confirming the duty demand of Rs.6,24,743/- (Rs.5,85,773/- + Rs. 38,970/-) and penalty amounts of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.20,000/-) on them.2. The learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.1/93-CE could not be denied to the appellants by taking into account the clearances of the firm M/&.Ludhiana Steels Ltd. as they took the factory premises on lease from that concern only from February 1995 and their own clearances did not exceed the prescribed limit. Therefore, the penalty and duty amounts deserve to be waived for the purposes of the hearing of the appeals especially when the appellants are also facing financ...