Delhi Court July 2002 Judgments

Fci Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC31

1. These three appeals of Food Corporation of India raise a common issue. That issue is whether Ammonium Chloride imported by them were eligible for exemption in terms of ad hoc exemption Order No. 404, dated 29-9-75 of the Government of India.2. The ld. Counsel representing the appellants submits that the ad hoc exemption Order No. 404, dated 29-9-75 of the Government of India related specifically to the import of 30,000 M.T. of Ammonium Chloride mentioned in that order. However, the impugned order rejected the refund application of the appellants on the ground that goods had already been imported prior to the issue of the ad hoc exemption order and for that reason the goods are not covered by the order. During the hearing of the case, the ld. DR also took us through the order in original to show that refund claim was time-barred inasmuch as the claim was originally made based on certain other ad hoc exemption order which did not relate to the goods in question and the relevant ad ho...

B.K. Enterprises Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(105)LC650Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed against the order in original dated 3.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad. The appellants imported several components of VCD players each in the quantity of 3200 sets/pieces. The Department issued a show cause notice dated 11.12.2001 proposing enhancement of value for the following three items: 2. The goods in question were imported from a Trading Company in Hongkong but were claimed to be made in China. However, Model No., Part No., Manufacturer's Name and specification etc. were not mentioned. In his order dated 3.4.2002, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the valuation proposed for the first two items but for the third item, namely R/F, he has approved assessment at Rs. 14.48 as against the proposed assessable value of Rs. 33.61. He also confiscated the goods in question but allowed redemption on payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as fine and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.3. The learned Advocate for the appellants seeks that the orde...

B.K. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC588

1. This appeal has been filed against the order in original dated 3.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad. The appellants imported several components of VCD players each in the quantity of 3200 sets/pieces. The Department issued a show cause notice dated 11.12.2001 proposing enhancement of value for the following three items:________________________________________________________________________________ SI.No. Description Declared Value Proposed Value________________________________________________________________________________ 1. PCB(set of 2) HKD 12 CIF(Rs. 74.04) US S 6.5 (Rs.313.62)________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Loader HKD 24CIF(Rs. 148.08) US S 8.5 CIF (Rs. 386) 3. R/F HKD 0.7 CIF(Rs.4.34) Rs. 33.61________________________________________________________________________________ 2. The goods in question were imported from a Trading Company in Hongkong but were claimed to be made in China. However, Mod...

Cce Vs. Rockman Cycle Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC329

1. This appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 15.2.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he reversed the Order-in-Original of the A.C. dated 19.11.1999 and allowed the modvat credit to the respondents. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of moped and motor cycle chains falling under sub-heading No. 7315.00 and 7224.00 of the CETA. They took modvat credit, on the capital goods namely chain making machinery, amounting to Rs. 50,78,996 on the strength of bill of entry dated 8.12.95. On scrutiny of their RT-12 return for the year ending 31.3.96, it revealed that the modvat taken by the respondents was not admissible to them and they were served with a show cause notice accordingly. The A.C. disallowed the modvat credit on the grounds (i) credit was taken without declaration as required under Rule 57T (CER), (ii) credit was taken on the bill of entry/invoice which was not in the name of the respondents, (iii) the goods ...

Punjab National Bank Vs. S.K. Poddar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)ILLJ757Del

Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal field under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 4, 1999 passed in CWP No. 2864/99. By that order the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent and quashed the order dated December 23, 1985 of the Hindustan Commercial Bank dismissing the respondent from its service. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:- 2. The respondent joined the Hindustan Commercial Bank at Calcutta in the year 1960 as a clerk. In course of time he acquired the position of a Manger and was posted in the Maya Puri Branch of the Bank in November 1980. he remained in that branch till July 1983 when he was transferred to Agra as Branch Manager of the Bank. On March 8, 1985, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent inter alia, on the ground that during his tenure as Manager at Maya Puri, New Delhi, and Agra bran...

Corporal Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Its Defense Sec ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT738; 2003(3)SLJ480(Delhi)

Anil Dev Singh, J:1. By this writ petition the petitioner inter alias challenges the order of his discharge from Army service on account of medical disability.2. The petitioner joined Indian Air Force on 27th May, 1986 as Technical Trade Airman. Some time in the year 1981, he was promoted to the rank of Corporal w.e.f. 27th May, 1991. On 3rd January, 1992 he was transferred to 24 Wing, Air Force, also known as Tetra School Air Force.3. In January 1992-93, the petitioner made certain allegations and grievances against his Commanding Officer. Thereafter he submitted an application for redressal of grievance (ROG) against his Commanding Officer. This was followed by several ROGs during the year 1992-93. The allegation of the petitioner has been that he was ill-treated and harassed by his Commanding Officer. His belongings, including his books and papers were stealthily removed. According to the petitioner there was a delay in forwarding the ROGs by the Commanding Officer, Group Captain P....

Smt. Krishna Rani Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT602

Khan, J. 1. Petitioner wants to have the cake and eat it too. She claims to have purchased property measuring 500 sq. yards situated at B-2/14, Safdarjang Enclave New Delhi through power of attorney from Smt. Sheila Cowasji to whom it was transferred by the original leaseholder Smt. Jamuna Bai. Later R-2 promulgated a policy for conversion of leasehold to free hold on terms and conditions laid down in the brochure in April, 1992 and fixed different conversion rates. 2. Petitioner also sought the benefit of this policy and applied for conversion on 30.6.1994. R-2 enforced the rate applicable to her category of property which she is contesting on the ground that it was unreasonable. Meanwhile her request for conversion stands granted and she has also paid the requisite charges at prescribed rate but her counsel still wants a decision on merits. 3. Petitioner complains of hostile discrimination. Her short case is that R-2 had fixed lower rate of Rs. 22,000/- for 125 sq. yards in the neigh...

inderjeet Singh Hansrao and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT256

Devinder Gupa, J.1. Heard.2. The appeal is against the award of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 26.5.2001 answering a reference made by the Collector, Land Acquisition under Section 28A(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act.3. Facts in brief are that the appellants land situated in village Dhirpur, Delhi was acquired for public purpose by virtue of notification issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act on 1.11.1978. The Collector made his Award No. 26/80-81 on 9.5.1980. The appellants did not seek any reference. Others had sought reference for determination of the amount, which were forwarded to the Court. The Reference Court on 15.12.1987 answered one of such reference holding the fair market value of all categories of land, situated within the revenue estate of Dhirpur at Rs. 26,000/- per bigha as against Rs. 7,000/- per bigha offered by the Collector. As the appellants had not sought reference earlier, thereforee, in consonance with t...

Mrs. Kanak Verma Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Another

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 20.5.2001, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 43/2001 entitled Mrs. Kanak Verma v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant Mrs. Kanak Verma, a subscriber of telephone connection bearing No. 5134005 installed at her residence at CD-24F, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that she had been receiving bills in respect of the above said telephone connection for the last 4 years for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- only. It was stated that she had received two bills both dated 9.10.2001 in respect of the above said telephone, amounting to Rs. 20,177/- and Rs. 25,...

Aar Aay Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT40TriDel

1. In this case, the appeal is against the order-in-appeal dated 20-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. The learned Advocate for the appellants stated that the original Adjudicating Authority had passed the order dated 21-4-2002 without giving a hearing to the appellants and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to remand the case back to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo proceedings wrongly stating that such remand is not-possible in view of the recent amendments in the Central Excise Act, 1944. On merits of the case, the learned Advocate argued that the shifted factory at new premises, belongs to the same manufacturer and there was no stock of inputs or in process and therefore, there was nothing to be transferred along with the factory to the new site.2. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue, stated that there is no bar to the Tribunal remanding the case back to the original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision. However, he contested the case on merit...