Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

A.C. Rishi Vs. Union of India Through the Chief Post Master General, N ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed against order dated 3.2.2001, passed by District Forum (New Delhi) in Complaint Case No. TC-355/1998 - entitled Shri A.C. Rishi v. UOI through The Chief Post Master General, New Delhi and Ors. By the impugned order the learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant to be paid by the respondent and also directed that the same be recovered from erring employees of the Postal Authorities. Not satisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum, the appellant Shri A.C. Rishi has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant sent 5 registered letters through respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 [vide Registry No. 2321 dated 10.12.1994 through respondent No. 6, No. 2607 dat...

income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Shahid Atiq L/H of Late Shri

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals filed by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 23.3.2000 for the assessment year 1992-93 and 93-94.2. Since identical grounds have been raised in both the appeals by the revenue, hence, for the sake of convenience, the two appeals have been decided by a common order.3. Smt. S. Narasamma, learned DR for the revenue and Shri C.S. Agarwal, Advocate and Smt. Lalita Krishna Murty, CA appeared for the assessee.4. The ground taken by the revenue on this appeal is being reproduced as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessments made Under Section 148/143(3) on the grounds that notice Under Section 148 was not valid having been issued in the name of the dead assessee, whereas in fact it was issued in the name of the deceased assessee through one of his legal heirs who always represented the deceased in subsequent asstt. Years." 5. The facts related to the issue involved in the ground o...

Gtc Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC109

1. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd., Vadodara (GTC) (appellant) are in appeal against the order of the respondent Commissioner, Central Excise, whereby the claim for availing transitional Modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Modvat rules was disallowed. The claim was in respect of two parts:- Claim for cut-tobacco contained in RG-I (BSR stock) of cigarettes figure of cut-tobacco as per formula was calculated.2. The appellants followed the required procedure contained in Rule 57H and submitted the required documents as demanded by the authorities from time to time. However, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 24.11.95 rejected the claim on the ground that original documents were not produced, the Assistant Commissioner did not take cognizance of the photo copies of the records supplied and also ignored the fact that the original RG-I had been taken by DRI office, Baroda on 2.4.95. Aggrieved by the rejection order, special leave application was filed by the appellant before Hon'ble Gujar...

Sharma Commercial (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC480

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Sharma Commercial (P) Ltd., for condonation of delay of more than 27 months in filing the appeal.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Order-in-Original No. 22/2000, dated 28-7-2000 passed by the Commissioner was received by them on 1-9-2000; that for the purpose of filing the appeal with the Tribunal against the said Order they obtained a demand draft for Rs. 1000/- on 7-11-2000 in favour of the Registrar, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi; that the appeal was sent through courier service on 9-11-2000; that Perfect Courier (P) Ltd. had issued a receipt No. 3589, dated 9-11-2000 in token of having received the packet for onward transmission to the Appellate Tribunal; that they had further informed the Range Supdt. under their letter dated 9-11-2001 about filing of the appeal against the impugned Order; that they had also given a copy of appeal along with Courier receipt to the Range Supdt.; that the Range Officer in 2003 January, ...

Vikas Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT819TriDel

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel forgings and were availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs during the relevant periods. The forgings supplied by the appellants to some of their customers were returned by the latter on account of defects. The customers also reversed the Modvat credit which they had earlier taken on the goods. The appellants, upon receipt of the defective goods, treated them as inputs and converted the same into fresh forgings according to the specifications of new buyers. They took Modvat credit on the defective forgings and utilized the same for payment of Central Excise duty on the new forgings. The Modvat credit so taken amounted to Rs. 44,262.73 P which was disallowed by both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner(Appeals). Hence the present appeal.2. Heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the defective goods returned by their customers were subjected to the same process of manufacture w...

Dyanamic Engineers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC313

1. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, we find that this case is fit for summary remand. Accordingly, we allow the stay application and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2, The appeal is against Order No. 29/2003 dated 14.5.2003 of the Commissioner which was passed pursuant to Final order No. 21-24/2001-B dated 12.1.2001 of this Tribunal. By the said Final Order which was passed in an earlier batch of appeals filed by the present appellants, we had held 'GIR Joints' to be excisable as also classifiable under CSH 8530.00 for Central Excise duty. As regards the duty to be paid on the clearances of the goods in expess of Rs. 30 lakhs limit (under the relevant Small Scale Exemption Notification) for the period 1.6.94 to 21.1.98, we had remanded the case to the Commissioner to requantify the same in the manner we prescribed. The relevant part of our order reads: "The duty liability of M/s. Dynamic Engineers to pay Central Excise duty on GIR Joints is affirmed, but the amou...

Harpartap Steels Limited and ors. Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC62

The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2003 passed in Application No. 4461/2003 by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT disposed of the application filed by the appellants/defendants for holding that the documents filed by the respondent-Bank along with the rejoinder should not be taken on record. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants is that these documents were neither referred to in the O.A. nor filed along with the O.A., but were filed only with the rejoinder.2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has observed that he will not decide the admissibility of the documents into evidence at this stage, but he will do so at the time of the final decision. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that if this point is to be decided at the time of final decision, it will be too late for the appellants to put forward their case regarding admissibility and relevancy.3. In ...

Yespee Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal was preferred from the order of the adjudicating authority/Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai, in proceedings under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) for charge of contravention of section 18 (2) and (3) of the Act; by virtue of the impugned orders, the appellants were found guilty of the charge and so were ordered to pay a penalty; the penalty imposed on the firm/first noticee was Rs. 4,00,000, whereas that on the partners was Rs. 40,000 each. The Enforcement Directorate had issued Show Cause Notice to these appellants (noticees in the adjudication proceedings); by virtue of SCN T-4/40/B/SDE/PKA/96, dated 10-7-1996 in respect of the export proceeds outstanding to the tune of Rs. 27,79,445 under 12 invoices to foreign countries abroad. The appellants had submitted in their reply that the firm had started its business only in 1992 and that on account of certain communal riots during December 1992 to January 1993, they had a lot of prob...

Capital Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC637

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 12.3.2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellants against the Order-in-Original holding the same to be time barred.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the impugned order was received by them only on 10.6.2002 from their gate keeper as the factory was lying closed and the appeal was filed on 28.6.2002 and as such the same was within time. The learned JDR, on the other hand, has contended that the Order-in-original was despatched to the appellants through registered post on 8.2.2002 and that they even deposited the entire duty by making debit entry in their RG 23A Part II on 15.2.2002 and penalty was deposited through TR 6 challan on 2.3.2002. Therefore, it could be inferred that they had received the copy of the order on 8.2.2002 and the appeal having been filed by them after expiry of the statutory period had been rightly dismissed by the Commission...

Shyam Antenna Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC140

1. These two appeals, one by M/s. Shyam Antenna (Appellant No. 1) and the other by M/s. Shyam Communication Systems Ltd. (Appellant No. 2) are directed against common Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-1. Brief facts of the case are as under :- On 14-7-98, a group of officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion visited the factory premises of the appellant, M/s. Shyam Antenna (1st Appellants), seized certain goods and records and recorded statement of various individuals. The appellants are manufacturers of Transmission and Receiving apparatus of radio television and their parts falling under Chapter Headings 85.25, 85.27, 85.29, 85.36, 85.43 and 90.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As a result of stock verification, unaccounted goods valued at Rs. 3,76,700/- were seized from the appellant's premises. The stock verification was also conducted at the premises of M/s. Shyam Communications, the second appellant, which resulted in the seiz...