Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC459Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, at the instance of the assessee, the challenge is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 152/CE/CHD-II/2002, dated 30-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. Two issues raised in this appeal are - (1) whether royalty collected by the appellants from the bottlers is liable to be added to the assessable value of the concentrate for the purpose of payment of duty and (2) whether the concentrate has to be classified under excise tariff heading 2107.99 where duty is at the rate of 20% ad valorem or whether it has to be classified under tariff heading 33.02 which attracted duty at 25% ad valorem.2. The issue regarding royalty stands covered against the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in its own case reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 33. It has been held therein that royalty charges for use of brand name by bottler on beverage products manufactured by them from concentrates purchased from appellant being an extra accrual over and above price collected for sa...

Seagram Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC638

1. In this appeal at the instance of Seagram Manufacturing Ltd. the importer, challenge is against the order in original dated 31.5.2002/4.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Under the above order, the Commissioner had adjudicated two show cause notices, one by DRI dated 19.12.2000 covering imports of alcoholic beverages during the period January 1995 to June 2000 and the second issued by Commissioner, ICD Tughlakabad dated 16.8.2001 covering imports during the period July 2000 to May 2001. The provisional assessment of the imports was finalised by the Commissioner taking recourse to Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. He confirmed an extra duty demand of Rs. 41,70,49,724 as against the total demand proposed in the two show cause notices of Rs. 50,05,12,913.2. The appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seagram India Ltd. which in turn is a 100% subsidiary of the Seagram Company Ltd. Canada.The Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB), Gov...

S.A. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT717TriDel

1. All the three appeals are filed against the same impugned order, therefore, the appeals are being taken together.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 58/97-CE., dated 30-8-1997. Appellants availed the benefit of deemed credit on the basis of above mentioned notification on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturer of the inputs.Show cause notices were issued to the appellants on the ground that as per Clause (iv) of the Notification No, 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-1997, the appropriate duty has not been paid by the manufacturer of the goods. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The appellants filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Modvat credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Quality Steel and in respect of other invoices, the benefit of deemed credit was denied.4. The contention of the appellants is that the credit has been ta...

Manoj Surgical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT822TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common order-in-appeal dated 16-5-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Joint Commissioner regarding the confiscation of the goods, vehicle and imposition of penalty of various amounts as detailed in that order itself.2. The facts are not much in dispute. During the course of transit checking on 11-10-1999, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, intercepted a vehicle Eicher Cantor bearing No. CCI-8406. The owner of the truck, Shri Anis Mansoori, produced four invoices before the Officers on their asking, out of which three were of 11-10-1999 and one dated 9-10-1999 bearing No. 838. The goods as well as the truck were seized. The statement of Shri Ramesh Sharma, Finance Manager of the company, was recorded wherein he disclosed that the goods of invoice no. 838 dated 9-10-1999 were in fact initially loaded on that very day itself along with the other goods, ...

National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Royal Construction ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)1; 2003(2)ARBLR158(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT382; 2003(71)DRJ522; 2003(2)RAJ334

R.C. Jain, J. 1. Once again we are called upon to answer the question 'Whether the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 or Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 would govern the present proceedings? This petition under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Act has been filed by the petitioner M/s National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. seeking setting aside of the arbitral award 10.8.02 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr. R.P. Billimoria.2. Undisputed being in a narrow compass are that parties entered into an agreement dated 10.8.02 in which M/s Royal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. had undertaken the execution of certain construction work of the petitioner herein. The said contract contained are Arbitration Agreement in Clause 62 which reads as under:' ARBITRATION ' Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specification, designs, drawings and instructions and conditions herein...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Imperial Pigments (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)278; II(2003)BC472; 104(2003)DLT651; 2003(68)DRJ781

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By these Orders, I shall dispose off the Defendants applications (under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for Leave to Defend the Suit) being IAs No. 968/99 [filed by Defendant No. 2] and I.A. 1939/00 [filed by Defendant No. 1]. 2. The first question to be addressed is whether the parties had entered into a ' written contract ' on the breach of which this summary suit is founded. The Plaintiff argues that all the terms of the parties engagement have been reduced to writing and can be found on the reverse side of each of its Invoices. I had the occasion to consider this very contention in the case titled KLG Systems Ltd. vs . Fujitsu ICIM Ltd., : AIR2001Delhi357 . My conclusion was that ' it is no longer rest integra that invoices/bills are ' written contracts' within the contemplation of this Order. Reference is directed to Messrs. Punjab Pen House v. Samrat Bicycles Ltd., : AIR1992Delhi1 Corporate Voice (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Uniroll Leath...

Social Jurist, a Lawyers Group Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ286

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that the applications of the students have been accepted and are under consideration. He further submitted that applications will not be rejected on the ground of want of birth certificate. It is stated that the affidavit will be accepted or in case of need, the student may be sent to the medical expert for determination of age. He further submitted that the applications shall be considered on merits and accordingly, the applications will be decided. The case may not be cited as a precedent.2. The petition stands disposed of....

Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre of Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Empl ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ645Del

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.CCP 47/20021. The petitioners complain of violation of the order dated June 1, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge. Operative part of the order reads as under:'..... Viewed in all complexities, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. All that the petitioners are required to do is to either adopt the Model Standing Order under the said Act, or submit its own Standing Orders for the scrutiny, approval and ratification of the Authority. It can hardly be countenanced in the 21st century that any person may be permitted to engage labour without promising and ensuring them minimum protection against arbitrary treatment. This minimum standard has been set out in the said Act. On behalf of the Workman, counsel had drawn attention to the various Rules/Orders followed by the petitioners which they would consider draconian and contrary to fair labour practice. These need not be dealt with by the Court since this scrutiny is properly that of the Authority under ...

J.M. Mukhi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT213

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is a trustee of the Trust which Trust was granted the perpetual leasehold rights in pursuance to the deed dated 24th July, 1995 in respect of plot No. 5, Section C, Pocket 9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The Trust received notice dated 14th August, 1997 under Section 124(5) of the DMC Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the said Act' for short) proposing a rateable value and the petitioner filed objections to the same claiming exemption under Section 115(4) of the said Act. This was followed up by another notice and the replies filed thereto. The petitioners claims not to have received any communication of any assessment order thereafter till a notice under Section 154(1) of the Act was received on 14th September, 1998 threatening to issue warrants of attachment for non-payment of the property tax. The petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the various notices as also for grant of exemption from payment of property tax.2. In the counter-affid...

B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited Vs. B.R. Verma

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 the the Act), is directed against order dated 4.12.2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 127/2002 - entitled Shri B.R. Verma v. Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri B.R. Verma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent was a member of a Group Housing Society, namely, Nav Rachna Group Housing Society. It was stated that the above said society had deposited a sum of Rs. 11,90,825/- with the appellant for the installation of a Sub-Station in the society and an application for individual connection was also filed by the respondent for which the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,770/- on 28.2.20...