Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Nagesh Kumar Vs. Ashish Khanna and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against order of District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, dated 28.3.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. OC/276/2001entitled Shri Nagesh Kumar v. Shri Ashish Kumar Shelters and Others. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the appellant had applied for a housing loan, for the construction of the first floor on his fathers house No. 183, Sharda Niketan, (Pitam Pura), Delhi-34, with the Citi Bank under the Citi Bank Home Loan Scheme and had accordingly been directed by the officials of respondent No. 3 to submit his loan application through M/s. Shelters (a Citi Bank Associate), whose office is located at Surya Kiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Accordingly, the appellant had approached said M/...

V.K.S. Adigal Vs. Prime Travels and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the complainant, briefly stated, is that the son of the complainant is a Non-Resident-Indian based at Chicago, USA. His marriage had been arranged by his parents i.e. the complainant and his family with a well-educated girl from Trinvandrum i.e. Ms. Sreelakshmi Narayanan. The said wedding was duly solemnised and the newly married couple were to return to Chicago together on 20.2.2001. The son of the complainant as per his programme had already got his return ticket confirmed from Delhi to Chicago on Air India Flight No. A1-123 scheduled to depart from Delhi on 20.2.2001 at 6.05 a.m. Accordingly the complainant purchased a ticket for his daughter-in-law, Ms. Sreelakshmi Narayanan, on 18.12.2000 through O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, so that the newly wed bride could accompany her husband on the same flight. On the as...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ranjeev Motors and Petro Products Pvt ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 28.7.2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. OC-306/2002 - entitled M/s. Ranjeev Motors and Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2. Insofar as the above mentioned petition, filed by the petitioner, is concerned we have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition, in nutshell, is that the summoned witnesses, having appeared and the RTO records in original having been produced, were discharged without being examined. In our opinion, the present petition, filed by the petitioner, is premature because the learned District Forum has not taken any final decision in the matter, even the ...

K.S. Gopalkrishnan Vs. President/General Secretary, Vasant Co-operativ ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against order dated 14.10.1996, passed by the District Forum (North) in Complaint Case No. 1309/1994 entitled Shri K.S. Gopalkrishnan v. Vasant Co-operative Group Housing Society. By the impugned order the learned District Forum rejected the prayer of the appellant Shri K.S. Gopalkrishnan for restoration of possession of the terrace but directed that evidence be produced regarding other two issues mentioned in the complaint. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal in brief are as follows: The appellant was a Member of the Vasant Co-operative Group Housing Society and was allotted Flat No. 80, Vasant Apartments, Plot No. 6, Mayur Vihar, Phase -I Extension, Delhi - 110091. However, the respondents failed to deliver the possession of the flat to the appellant in spite of clearance of all the dues. The appellant filed a Complaint...

Jindal Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT445TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants, the issue relates to the availability of Modvat credit to the appellants on the duplicate copy of the invoice. The authorities below have denied the credit on the ground that the supplier of the goods who issued the invoice to the appellants, did not submit the duplicate copy for the transporter and the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry in terms of Rule 57G to the concerned Range Officer.2. I have heard both sides. There is nothing on the record to suggest if any show cause notice was ever served on the supplier of the goods, viz. MMTC for having availed Modvat credit wrongly, before passing on the same through valid documents to the appellants. Even otherwise non submission of the relevant documents in the range office by the supplier of the goods, could not be made ground for penalising the present appellants who admittedly received the goods on payment of duty through valid documents. The duty paid character of the goods ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Oswal Fats and Oils

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT262TriDel

1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents although on the last date of hearing, the appeal was adjourned on the request of the Counsel, for today. But neither the Counsel has come present nor any representative of the respondents company and no request for adjournment has also been received. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.2. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed Modvat credit of Rs. 2,14,720/- to the respondents.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of soap, oxygen, glycerine, and fatty acid pitch. They availed Modvat credit of the amount in question during the period 1-8-99 to 9/99 without having proper duty paying documents in terms of Rule 57G(3). They were served with the show cause notice alleging contravention of Rules 57G and 57A, 57Q and 57T of the Rules, while availing the Modvat...

Jagdamba Petroleum P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC463

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudication of three show-cause notices dated 30.3.2001, 27.2.2002 and 15.11.2002. The impugned order confirmed the demands of Special Excise Duty (SED) amounting totally to over Rs. 1 crore as raised in the show-cause notices for the total period March 2000 to August, 2002. It also imposed a penalty of equal amount on the assessee under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act. The learned Commissioner passed the order after holding that the products namely 'special solvent' and 'other residue', on which the above demand of SED was raised, were correctly classifiable under sub hearing 2710.13 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed in the show-cause notices.2. Examined the records and heard both the sides. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'special solvent' and 'other residue' using naphtha as raw material. They classified the product...

Govind Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT370TriDel

1. The above captioned three appeals have been filed against a common Order-in-Original dated 31-8-2001. The two Appeals Nos. 2351-2352/2001 had been filed by the assessee firm M/s. Govind Printing Works and its proprietor, Shri Shiv Ratan Das Kanodia, while the third Appeal No.E/2995/2002 had been filed by the Revenue.2. Shri Shiv Ratan Das Kanodia is the sole proprietor of firm of M/s.Govind Printing Works. He is engaged in the processing of grey fabric falling under Heading 5207 of the CETA. He also carries out drawing, scouring, padding, bleaching and dyeing of cotton fabrics on job work basis. He had been availing the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99, by making declaration under Rule 174 of the Rules that the work of dyeing and bleaching was not being carried out by him with the aid of power and steam. However, on surprise checking by the Central Excise Officers, of his factory on 21-5-1999, it was revealed that, he was carrying out these processes with the po...

Cc Vs. Sahil Trends and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC727Tri(Delhi)

1. The Commissioner (Customs), Kandla is an appellant in all these appeals. The instant appeals have been filed on the basis of CBEC's Review Order under Section 129(D)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the appeals, it has been pleaded that, though in the impugned order, the imported goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, for not observing the conditions of the exemption notification availed, no redemption fine was imposed on the goods which were held liable to confiscation. On placing reliance on the apex Court's judgment in the case reported as 1984 (ECR) 138 (SC) and also in the case of Western Components Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi reported as , it is stated that, fine in lieu of confiscation can be imposed, even in case, where goods are physically not available for confiscation. The appeal further contends that, the Commissioner has not imposed any penalty under Section 112, even though, these were proposed in the show-cause notices.3. We note...

Century Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT534TriDel

Through the present stay application/ the appellants have sought waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 3,83.587/- which has been confirmed against them through the impugned order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), by disallowing them Modvat credit on explosives used outside the factory premises.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the case of the appellants stands squarely covered by Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) which had been followed by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 877 and that for the earlier period, the appellants had been allowed Modvat credit on the explosives. He had also submitted that the amended definition of the input which came into force from 1-7-2000 did not stand on a different footing than the earlier one. The learned Counsel has contended that it is a fit case where total waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty deserves to be allowed.3. On the other hand, ...