Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Vijay Kumar Kalra

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 29.10.2002 passed by the District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/239/2000 entitled Shri Vijay Kumar Kalra v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Shri Vijay Kumar Kalra had filed a complaint before the District Forum averring therein that he had applied for an advance of Rs. 1,10,000/- from his Provident Fund Account on 11.1.1999 which was sanctioned on 15.2.1999 and the respondent was informed that the cheque for the amount of advance sanctioned in his favour amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- would be sent directly to the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) within two weeks. It was stated that the above said advance was applied by the re...

Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT336TriDel

1. In this Appeal, filed by M/s. Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether 'Tarpaulin & Tents' manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading No. 63.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading No. 39.26 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2.1 Shri Paresh Dave, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture plastic tapes, fabrics, laminated fabrics, made-up articles like tarpaulin, tents, etc., that the process of manufacture of tarpaulin is as under: "The HOPE granules are converted into flat yarn of lower denier having width not exceeding 5 mm, known as tapes. Such flat yarn is manufactured on an extruder machine and then is converted into fabrics on flat looms, such HDPE/Plastic fabrics are, thereafter, coated/laminated with LDPE on one side and then cut into required size. The sides of cut pieces are trimmed, stitched and eyelets of prices are also stitched and the ...

Him Electronics Traders Vs. Commr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT761TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original dated 17-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (General), adjudicating authority, had ordered the confiscation of the seized goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with an option to the owner to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on appellant no. 2, partner of the firm, appellant no. 1, under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals may briefly be stated as under - On 19-5-1998, the D.R.I, officers searched the residential premises of the appellant No. II at New Rohtak Road and also his business godown premises. During the search, the officers recovered 184 pcs. of Pioneers Speakers from his residence and 20 items of Car Stereo System/Car Cassette, CD remote changer, car audio and speaker of different brands from his business godown premises. All these goods were of forei...

Viva Electronics Vs. Commr. of Cus. (igi Airport)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT499TriDel

1. M/s. Viva Electronics have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 272/2002, dated 31-7-2002 confirming the enhancement of assessable value of the goods imported by them.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported a consignment of 200 pieces of Cordless Telephones, model WT 3990. from Hongkong and declared the value to be U.S. $ 3750; that the Asstt., Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 2/99, dated 10-2-99 enhanced the value to U.S. $ 32 per piece instead of U.S. $ 18.75 declared by the Appellants, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pan Asia Enterprises v. C.C., 1995 (79) E.L.T. 322 (Tribunal); that the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal holding that the Appellants could not produce any evidence to show that the manufacturer's quotation relied upon by the Department was not genuine and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharp Business Machines Pvt. ...

United Special Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT902TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Appellants are manufacturing steel ingots and billets and are working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and were paying duty only on production capacity of their unit. Appellants applied for abatement of duty for the period from 26-10-1997 to 4-11-1997 and 2-12-1997 to 9-12-1997 as per provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of the Rules.The claim of the appellants was rejected.4. The contention of the appellants is that the claim was rejected only on the ground that the appellants had not complied with the condition laid down under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Rules. According to this condition, the appellants, while intimating the start of their factory, were also to declare that their factory remained closed for continuous period for which the abatement claim was made. The contention of the appellants is that this is the only condition which, according to the Commissioner of Central...

Burman Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT661TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Burman Laboratories Ltd., is whether "Keshraj Oil" manufactured by them is classifiable under Sub-heading 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as an Ayurvedic medicine or under Heading 3305.10 as a perfumed hair oil.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that "Keshraj Oil" is clearly identified, recognised and treated as an Ayurvedic medicine and its main value is therapeutic value or prophylactic value; that the impugned product is an ayurvedic medicine containing all the ingredients specifically mentioned in the authoritative Ayurvedic Text and the ayurvedic medicinal value is the main function and not a subsidiary function; that Note 2 to Chapter 33 of the Tariff is not attracted as the labels affixed to the impugned product no where mentions that it is hair oil; that on the other hand it is clearly mentioned in the label as under : "Dabur Keshraj Oil is a speciality formulated Ayurvedic Cooli...

J.K. Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT443TriDel

1. The appellant filed these appeals against the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby it is held that silicon oil spray imported by the appellant is classifiable under Heading 39.10 of Customs Tariff.2. Heard both sides. The appellant claimed the classification of silicon oil under Heading 34-3-99 of the Customs Tariff on the ground that it is used by them as a mould releasing preparation and appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Synthetics v. Collector of Customs 3. The contention of the Revenue is that silicon oil in primary form is specifically covered under Heading 39-10-00 of the Customs Tariff and as per Chapter Note VI of Chapter 39 of the Tariff. The contention of the Revenue is also that ratio of the decision of the J.K. Synthetics relied upon by the appellants is not applicable as the Tribunal decided the issue in respect of grant of benefit of Notification No. 136/86 and the classification issue was not disputed by the...

Kamal Kumar Modi and anr. Vs. Krishan Saigal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi349; 104(2003)DLT208; 2003(68)DRJ290; (2003)134PLR6

B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellant is facing Eviction Suit No. 896/98. In this, respondent (plaintiff) filed an application under Order 18 Rule 4 for filing the examination-in-chief of the witnesses on affidavit which was allowed by impugned order dated 21.10.2002 providing thus:'The plaintiff to file affidavit by way of examination-in-chief subject to right of rebuttal within a period of four weeks from today and by defendant within eight weeks from today.'2. The appellant (defendant) feels aggrieved of this and has filed this appeal to assail the order. According to his Counsel Mr. Endlaw, appellant could not be called upon to file the examination-in-chief of his witnesses on affidavit prior to the cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses. This would run counter to the scheme of Order 18 Rule 1 which provided for the plaintiff's right to begin first and then that of the defendant and would also deprive him of a right to depose/elucidate any matter or issue requiring clarification or arising...

RaisuddIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)430; 2003(68)DRJ377

Usha Mehra, J. 1. Mr. V.K. Shall, Standing Counsel for the NCT of Delhi has filed the affidavit of Shri T.N. Mohan, Deputy Commissioner of Police (PHQ) in compliance with the order passed by this court on 27th November, 2002. By the said order authorities were asked to specify as to whether or not the construction of the police station and fire station has been raised with the approval of the competent authorities i.e. M.C.D., A.S.I, and Delhi Urban Arts Commission. In response to the same, DCP (Headquarter) in his affidavit has indicated that the police station and the fire station are being constructed in accordance with the layout plan and having plans duly sanctioned by the D.D.A. That the said plans have already been approved by the Delhi Urban Arts Commission, PWD, Division No. 12. They have also incorporated the fire safety measures which is annexed Along with the necessary sanction letter. That the buildings of the police station and the fire station are being raised in accorda...

Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. All India Oriental Bank of Com ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Del)274

ORDER1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, is directed against a common order passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA Nos. 8575/Del/1992, 1063/Del/1994, 1064/Del/1994, in respect of asst. yrs. 1989-90, 1990-91 & 1991-92. The following questions have been proposed in the appeal memo, stated to be substantial questions of law :'A. Whether Tribunal was correct in excluding the interest income on deposits made out of contributions from members, deposits so made are not determined vis-a-vis member's contributions ? B. Whether the principle of mutuality applies to the cases where interest earned on deposits made out of members contributions is not seggregable from the interest earned from non-members contributions/non-members contributions/donations ? C. Whether ratio of Supreme Court of India judgment in Chelmsford Club v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 89 applies to the cases where the income earned on deposits made out of members and non-members contributions/donation...