Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

Videocon International Limited Vs. Harnam Singh and Another

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) on behalf of M/s. Videocon International Limited, against the order passed by District Forum-VII (Sheikh Sarai), dated 19.7.2000. By the impugned order the learned District Forum found the appellant M/s. Videocon International Limited liable for deficiency in service and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of late despatch of shares along with Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. 2. The facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows: The respondents Shri Harnam Singh and Smt. Harbir Kaur were allotted 5000 shares each of the value of Rs. 10/- each. The respondents paid Rs. 50,000/- each to the appellant by way of Bank Draft. One share certificate for a total of 5000 shares was issued in the name of each respondent which was non-transferable till 10.11.1995 but single shar...

Man Industries (India) Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC588

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium profiles, bars & rods, tubes & pipes etc. falling under Chapter 76 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. On 16.8.1996, officers of Central Excise visited their factory, checked the physical stock of finished goods vis-a-vis, the stock recorded in statutory records and seized the goods found unaccounted. They also visited certain other premises of the appellants and also the premises of their dealers. Records relevant to the investigation were resumed from the various premises. Subsequently, on different dates, the officers recorded statements (under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act) of some executives and employees of the appellant-company as also of others. From the documentary and oral evidence gathered by the investigating officers, it appeared to the department that the appellant-company had evaded payment of Central. Excise duty through clandestine removal of certain finished goods and del...

P.D. Tulsiyan and Sons Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC403

1. This appeal filed by M/s P.O. Tulsiyan & Sons is against the Order No. 35/Commr/MP/2001 dated 31.12.2001 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, whereby the adjudicating authority inter alia imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By the said order, the Commissioner imposed varying penalties under the said Rule on several other persons also. All these penalties are based on a common finding that the persons concerned had actively been involved in facilitating clandestine removal of Sulphuric Acid from the factory of M/s Trimurti Fertilizers Ltd (M/s TFL, for short), against whom a demand of Central Excise duty of over Rs. 92 lakhs has been confirmed and a penalty of equal amount imposed. The impugned order was passed in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 14.10.99 issued to M/s TFL & others on the basis of the results of investigations conducted since 14.10.97.2. On 14.10.1997, separate teams of offi...

Bestavision Electronics Ltd., Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As these four appeals arise out a common Order-in-Original NO. 4/03 dated 30.01.03, by which the Commissioner has disallowed the MODVAT Credit to M/s. Bestavision Electronics Ltd. and imposed penalties on all the appellants, these are being taken up together for disposal.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Learned Advocate, submitted that M/s.Bestavision Electronics Ltd., appellant No. 1, manufactures colour T.V.sets and the other three appellants manufacture colour picture tubes; that on receipt of colour picture tubes on payment of duty, the appellant No. 1 takes MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on colour picture tubes; that the defective colour picture tubes are sent back by the appellant No. 1 to the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 for repairs under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules after reversing 10 per cent of the MODVAT Credit involved; that after rectification of the defect, the rectified colour picture tubes are sent back by the appellants No 2 to 4 to appellant No. 1 under the same chal...

D.R. Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC753

1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. D.R. Polymers Ltd., the issue involved relates to the enhancement of the assessable value of the plastic raw material imported by them.2. Shri Prem Ranjan, learned Advocate, submitted that they had imported 34 MT Polyacetal K 300 and K 700 @ US$ 885 PMT; that they had also imported 102 MT high density Polythelene @ US $ 500 PMT; that the Deputy Commissioner enhanced the value to US $ 900 PMT and US $ 580 PMT respectively; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under both the impugned orders has upheld the enhancement in the assessable value on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner besides relying on PLATT rate had also taken into consideration the contemporary import price of the same goods. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the value declared in the relevant invoices reflects true and correct transactional value which merits acceptance in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with Rule 4 (1) of the Customs Valuation (Determinatio...

Brig. V.N. Channa (Retd.) Vs. Gargya Research Instruments and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assailing the order dated 6.11.2003 passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 130/2003 entitled Brig. V.N. Channa (Retd.) v. M/s. Gargya Research Instruments and Anr. 2. The grievance of the appellant before the District Forum was that the appellant had purchased an inverter from the respondents in an exchange scheme in September 2001 and had also obtained an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC), on payment of the requisite charges. The said inverter was not functioning properly and as such the appellant had approached the respondents for having the same repaired and it was on persistent requests that the engineer of the respondent came to rectify the inverter and while attempting to repair the same, damaged the inverter, as well as, the batteries. Thereafter also the appellants effort to have the...

Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT301TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the product, manufactured by M/s. Holostick India Ltd., is classifiable under Heading No. 49.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as the product of printing industry as claimed by them or under Heading No. 39.19 of the Tariff as self-adhesive film as confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned Order.2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants Company manufactures security holograms and holographic films; that the art work prepared by artist and computer having logo/company buyers name, etc. is itched/transferred to glass plate having coating of lacquer with laser and optics; that then glass master is made; that by the process of electroforming, image on the nickel masters could be replicated/reproduced with the help of nickel sulphamate plating solution; that from Nickel Master, additional Nickel masters are made which are called "shims or production plates"; that by the process of embo...

Laxmi Nets and Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT193TriDel

The appellants imported an old and used wrap knitting machine and sought its clearance under Bill of Entry No. 328425, dated 5-7-2001 from ICD, Patparganj. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the machine upon a finding that the machine was more than 10 years old, and machine older than 10 years required a import licence for their import.The appellants claim was that the machine was manufactured in 1991. The Commissioner's finding was that the machine had been manufactured in 1981. Consequent to the finding, the Commissioner confiscated the machine and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5.5 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed. The present appeal challenges the confiscation of the machine.2. The finding in the impugned order that the machine was manufactured in 1981 is based on two pieces of evidence. One was a plate affixed on the automatic exchange speed equipment machine. This is a part of the machine and the year of manufacture showed on it is 1981. The second piece of...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Venus Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC537

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the interest is demandable from M/s. Venus Industries under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri P.M. Rao, learned DR, submitted that a show cause notice dated 22-3-91 was issued to M/s. Venus Industries for demanding the duty for the period from 1-3-86 to 13-8-88 as they had wrongly availed of the small scale exemption benefit under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; that the matter was adjudicated by the Collector under Order-in-Original No.26/92, dated 23-4-92, by which he confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 10,50,165.76 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-was imposed; that, however, on appeal, the appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 384/2000-B, remanded the matter to the Commissioner for consideration of the applicability of the Proviso (b) to Para 4 of the Notification No.175/86; that the Commissioner, in de novo proceedings under Order-in-original No. 45/2001 dated 28-11-2001, has denied the benefit of small...

Jayaswala Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT77TriDel

1. The appellant M/s. Jayaswala Neco Ltd. imported a consignment of drawings and designs valued around Rs. 44 lakhs and sought its clearance under Bill of Entry No. 1194/96, dated 14-3-2001 at nil rate of duty. Under the impugned order Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo, New Delhi confiscated the goods, with an option to the appellant to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 11 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs has also been imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.The order has also directed that the imported drawings and designs be classified and assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 8502.39 as part of T.G. set, Turbine etc. cleared by the importers from Mumbai Customs House under Bill of Entry No. 15.03.01-IMP-B-002617 (Manual B/E) dt.22-3-2001. The basis of the impugned valuation is that in terms of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, the value of design and drawing is required to be added to the value of TG set, Turbine, which had earlier been imported.2. The con...