Delhi Court September 2002 Judgments

Smt. Abha Ballani Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. In the present complaint, filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the case of the complainant, in brief is, that the complainant had applied for a flat under the Self Financing Scheme, 1995 of the OP vide application No. 007480. In pursuance thereto the complainant was allotted a ground floor flat in Dwarka, Section 12, Pocket/Block-I, Delhi, vide allotment letter dated 20/30.11.1995 at an estimated cost of Rs. 6,70,000/- (Rs. six lakhs seventy thousand only). The complainant made the payment of the amount of Rs. 6,03,100/- as per the demand letter dated 20/30.11.1995 which reflected 90% price of the flat and it was deemed, in terms of the brochure for the scheme under which the flat had been allotted, that the construction of the flat was 90% complete. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the O.P. sent another demand letter dated 1.10.1996 indicating the total price of the flat as Rs. 8,...

Cce Vs. Monnet Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC481

1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit to the respondents on certain parts of electric motors under Rule 57Q for the periods November 1998 and April 1999.2. The respondents had procured electric motors originally from M/s.Kirloskar Electric Co, Ltd. for the purpose of running their manufacturing units. In November 1998 and April 1999, these motors were sent to M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. for replacement of certain parts and for allied repair works. The Kirloskar Company undertook the job and returned the motors to the respondents under cover of invoices in which duty of excise was shown to have been paid on the value of replaced parts. The respondents took credit of this duty under Rule 57Q, which was objected to by the department on the ground that the parts of electric motors on which the credit was taken were not brought as such into the assessee's factory. The credit so taken by the part was to the tune of Rs. 1...

Saraswati Steel Industries and 20 Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC344

1. In all these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved hence, they are all taken up together for disposal as per law. The common question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 208/83 dt. 1.8.83 in respect of the inputs obtained by Ship breakers arising from dismantling and breaking of ships and also purchasing the said material from the traders, who have procured the same from ship breakers, for the purpose of manufacturing CTD bars/rods of iron round bars, angles etc. The contention of the appellants are that they are engaged in the activity of manufacturing rolled products, such as bars and rods of iron and nonalloy steel, round bars, CTD bars etc. The goods being manufactured by them the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and previously in the erstwhile Tariff were classifiable under TI 25 of the First Schedule to the Old Tariff Act. The final product of the appellants are dutiable and it is t...

Vardhman Acrylics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC38

"I have carefully gone through the records of the case and considered submissions made by the appellants. I find that it is not in dispute that what has been imported is 100% cotton cloth bleached plain weave. During the course of personal hearing, I had also seen the sample and I agree with the findings of the lower authority that the impugned goods being made of cotton and these are 100% cotton fabrics, bleached correctly classifiable under Heading 52.08. I also observe from the findings of the lower authority that the goods are in running length and are not even cut to any specific size and shape. I, accordingly, have no hesitation to hold that the impugned goods would fall under Exim Code 5208. 1 also observe that the lower authority has correctly held that by virtue of Note 7 to Chapter 59, the subject goods are excluded from the classification under Heading 59.11 of Customs Tariff firstly, because these goods are specifically falling under Heading 5208 of Section XI, and secondl...

Om Metals and Minerals Vs. Cce-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC284

1. In this Appeal, filed by M/s. Om Metals & Minerals Ltd., the issue involved is whether their capacity of production is to be redetermined under the provisions of Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act.2. Ms. Reena Khair, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture iron and steel ingots which were liable to Central Excise duty @ Rs. 750 Per MT calculated on the annual capacity of production determined under the Induction Finance Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, determined their annual capacity at 9600 MT per annum against which their Appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/844/99 NB dated 9.9.99 directing the Commissioner to redetermine the annual production capacity afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing; that the Commissioner redetermined the annual capacity of production as 9600 MT which was again remanded by the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A/787-88/2000 NB dated ...

Seagram Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT414TriDel

1. When the above application for stay came up for hearing, it was agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/327/ICD/2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal and stay application filed by the assessee were dismissed on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable.2. By Order-in-Original dated 31-5-2002/4-6-2002, the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, adjudicated show cause notices dated 19-12-2000 and 16-8-2001 issued to the appellant herein. These show cause notices related to the valuation of the Concentrate of Alcoholic Beverages (CAB) imported by the appellants from Scotland during the period from 1995 to May 2001. Under the above order it was held that the declared value of the imported CAB should be determined in terms of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Commissioner finalised the provisional assessment and confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 41,70,49,724/-. Against the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aditi Foams (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC883

1. The respondents manufacture Flexible P.V., Foam Blocks falling under Chapter Heading 3909. They were issued a show cause notice by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aligarh in which it was alleged that their unit is situated in the same premises as that of M/s. Wadhwa Poly Foam (P) Ltd., Mathura and they had taken over all liabilities of the said company. They applied for a fresh registration on 27-3-96 and they were issued the same on 8-4-96. It is however observed that they transferred the Modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 4,16,899.97 from the old unit - M/s. Wadhwa Poly Foam (P) Ltd. to the credit of their own Modvat account on 1-4-96, even prior to the registration of the new unit which is irregular and inadmissible. It is further alleged that they availed the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,27,762.00 during the period from 15-4-96 to 25-4-96 on the invoices which were in the name of the erstwhile unit - M/s. Wadhwa Poly Foam (P) Ltd. which is in violation of the provision...

State Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. J.R. Surma S/O Piara Lal and Presid ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003(96)FLR596]; (2003)ILLJ450Del

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 16th August, 1984 passed by the leaned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in ID No. 51/78.2. The dispute referred for adjudication to the learned CGIT was as under:-'Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, New Delhi, in dismissing Shri J.R. Surma, Typist Clerk, in the State Bank of India, New Delhi with effect from 30th April, 1977 is justified? If not to what relief is the workman entitled?'3. Briefly, the facts are that Respondent No. 1 the Workman joined the services of the Petitioner on 8th June, 1970 as a Typist/Clerk. On 31st December, 1975 he was issued a charge sheet in which he was alleged to have prepared four fictitious credit vouchers favoring National Trading Co. These forged vouchers were then passed under the forged signatures of M.R. Lamba, Head Clerk in the concerned department. Thereafter, payment vouchers were issued in favor of National Trading Co. on the basis of the...

Keshav Security Service Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)CTLJ101(Del)

Khan, J. 1. Petitioners are private security agencies providing security services to various establishments. They were doing so to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)'s establishments also but their run was cut short after the Government's directive to public sector undertakings to engaged contract security services from DGR (Directorate General Resettlement) approved security agencies only. This was first done through OM dated 1.2.1999 issued by the Department of Public Enterprises which was later followed by defense Ministry's circular dated 26.4.2001 and the BSNL Memorandum dated 3.4.2002 whereby all BSNL establishments were instructed to engage security personnel from DGR sponsored agencies only. They challenge this and also Clause 14(d) or BSNL Guidelines which stipulates a retired Gazetted Officer to be on the Board of Directors of private limited companies running these security agencies and which allegedly renders them ineligible to be on the BSNL panel.2. Petitioner's case is ...

Devinder Singh Nagi Vs. S.H.O. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT61

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner Devinder Singh Nagi has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 26/2001 registered against him for offences under Section 323/342/356/379/427/452/506 read with Section 34 IPC at P.S. Krishna Nagar, charge-sheet and the proceeding emanating there from pending in the court of Mr. Ramesh Kumar, M.M., Kakardooma Courts.2. The case FIR. No. 26/2001 is registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2 Sudhir Kumar Jain on 30.1.2001. Mr. Jain in his complaint to the SHO has allege that on 30.1.2001 at about 6.30 A.M. he left his home for Hanuman Mandir and on the way he went to his another house E-7-A/4, Krishna Nagar for looking into the arrangement for pooja being conducted there He sat in the pooja for some time. Thereafter he went into the house and when he was emerging there from he heard abuses emanating from the pooja room. He saw that the accused Devinder Singh Nagi along with three or more ...