Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Uco Bank Vs. K.K. Raizada 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 10.5.2000, passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1168/2000 entitled Shri K.K. Raizada and Anr. v. The Manager, UCO Bank and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondents Shri K.K. Raizada and Smt. Rajkumari had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. In the complaint filed by the respondents it was stated that the appellant bank had issued two FDRs each for Rs. 25,000/-, both dated 26.9.1989 in favour of the respondents. The above said FDRs issued by the appellant were to mature on 25.9.1990. It was stated that the respondents had stood surety for Rs. 50,000/- in a Criminal Case entitled Enforcem...

Himalayan Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT654TriDel

1. These appellants are manufacturers of HDPE pipes falling under Chapter Heading 39.17 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. During the period 1-3-92 to 28-2-94, this product was fully exempted from payment of duty of excise by virtue of Notification No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-92 which was rescinded by Notification No. 64/94-CE., dated 1-3-94.The appellant were supplying HDPE pipes to the Telecom and other departments of the Government under rate contracts entered into between them and the Government. On 28-2-94 the applicants cleared certain quantities of HDPE pipes to the Government departments without payment of duty, claiming exemption under Notification No. 14/92-C.E. ibid. The Inspecting Authority (Additional Director General, DGS&D, New Delhi) had duly inspected the goods before clearance thereof from the appellants' factories in terms of the rate contracts. However, it was only on 7-3-94 that the Inspecting Authority issued its inspection notes to the appellants. The Central E...

interarch Building Products Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC361

1. The controversy in this appeal is regarding Modvat credit on a quantity of 30803 kgs. of raw materials which were claimed by the appellants to be in stock in their factory as on 1.3.94 and hence eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium panels, profiles, etc. (Tariff Sub-heading 7606.29) which were exempt from payment of duty prior to 1,3.94. On 1.3.94, these products became dutiable in terms of Notification No. 44/94-CE. The appellants wanted to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on the aforesaid quantity of raw materials which were claimed to be in stock with them as on 1.3.94.They wanted to do so under the transitional provisions of Rule 57 H ibid. The department resisted this and issued a show-cause notice, which was contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the credit of Rs. 9,13,157.82 taken by the party under Rule 57H on...

Amar Embroidery Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT664TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order in original C.A.O. No.367/2001/CAC/CC/MCT, dated 7-11-2001 of Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Customs House, Mumbai. Under the impugned order the Commissioner confiscated a second hand BESR Barudan (Japan) embroidery machine imported by the appellant herein under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. The importers were, however, allowed to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the Act. The confiscation was on the ground that the appellants had mis-declared the model and year of imported machine and the value of US $ 7500 declared in the invoice was a mis-declared lower price, the correct price being US $ 40000. The import was under invoice dated July 18, 2001 and the goods had been declared in the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer manufactured in 1993. The year of manufacture was significant inasmuch as import of more than 10 ye...

All India Tennis Association Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT677TriDel

1. Applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.3. Applicants made an import of raw-material for synthetic track and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 146/94, dated 13-7-94. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit on the ground that the Notification No. 146/94 provides exemption on sports goods, sports equipments and sports requisites and the goods, in question, are not sports requisites. Appellants filed appeals and the same were dismissed.4. The contention of the applicants is that now the Revenue department has issued a Circular No. 70/2002-Cus., dated 25-10-2002, which clarifies that the material required for laying the artificial surface and synthetic tracks or wooden flooring would also be sports requisites as provided under Notification No. 146/94.5. In view of above circular, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived.6. With the consent pf both the sides, the appeals are being taken up for hearing.7. The benefit of notification was only...

Doaba Alloys Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT681TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 16-3-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Dy. Commissioner dated 27-11-98, who confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,09,505/- with penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 against the appellants.2. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the strength of a show cause notice containing allegations that during the visit to their factory by the officers of Anti-Evasion Branch on 29-11-94, a shortage of 35.135 MT of MS ingots and 5.05 MT of finished goods was detected. It was also alleged that one slip dated 29-11-94 with the column "in and out" bearing some numbers was found with the gate keeper and the enquiry from the staff present in the factory revealed that the goods were removed from the factory clandestinely without reflecting them in the statutory record, after weighing those goods at Dayal Dharam Kan...

Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC501

1. These appeals arise out of an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dated 22.2.2001. When in Appeal No.E/1157/2001-A the assessee challenges the demand of Central Excise duty to extent of Rs. 42,24,113, imposition of penalty of Rs. 21 lakhs under Rule 173-Q and confiscation of land, building, machinery etc., in Appeal No. E/1457/2002-A the Revenue seeks enhancement of the quantum of the penalty.2. The appellant company was engaged in manufacturing ice cream in its factory situated at Sahibabad since 1981. It was clearing the ice cream on payment of Central Excise duty. On 14.10.94 the appellant alongwith certain other companies (which are collectively referred to as 'K-North') entered into an agreement with Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BBLIL) and Unlever Industry Pvt. Ltd. known as the sourcing agreements. Under the said agreement BBLIL was to place orders on K-North, including the appellant for manufacturing ice cream etc. Such pro...

Pranav Vikas Indian Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(108)LC564Tri(Delhi)

1. In these two appeals, arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.426&429/2002 both dated 23.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals, the common issue involved is whether Special Excise duty as specified under 2nd Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act is leviable on cooling coil assembly, condenser unit assembly manufactured by them.2. We heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate for the Appellants, and Shri Vikas Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue. Learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in both these appeals stands decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Kehin Penalfa v. Commissioner of Central Excise, NOIDA vide Final Order No. 498/200243 dated 11.12.2002. The learned Senior Departmental Representative fairly agrees with the submissions made by the learned Advocate.3. As submitted by the learned Advocate, we find that the issue involved in both these appeals is no more res integra as the Tribunal has held in the case of...

Sapna Tours Travels and Leasing Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)108

1. The assessee has come in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-X, New Delhi, in appeal Nos. 249/1999-2000, 303/2000-01 and 213/2001-02 dt.31st Jan., 2002. Since the facts of the case and grounds of appeal are common for all the 3 years, they are disposed of by a common order.Basically, the appeals are against the action of CIT(A) in confirming the order of AO that the imported vehicles were not used for the business of running on hire for tourists but were leased out to companies who were not connected to tourism.2. The assessee-company is carrying on the business of car rentals. It has, apart from Indian made cars, several imported cars in its fleet.Depreciation has been claimed both on Indian cars and also on imported cars.3. The AO has scrutinized the claim of depreciation and the import documents including the terms, the conditions under which import of these vehicles were allowed by the Government. It was noticed that special concessional duty rate was enjoyed by the assessee-com...

Housing Urban Dev. Corpn. Vs. Joginder Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003(97)FLR782]

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. The respondent was engaged as a daily wager by the petitioner. The respondent worked intermittently from 16th April, 1994 till 27th September, 1995. After 27.9.1995, the respondent was not given any work and his services were discontinued. Being aggrieved by the discontinuation of his services, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference : Whether the service of Shri Joginder Kumar had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? If so to what relief he is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.'4. By the impugned award, the Labour Court decided the reference in favor of the workman after holding that the workman was in continuous employment with the management from 15th April, 1994 till 4th January, 1995 with break in the month of No...