Delhi Court May 2003 Judgments

Shri Suresh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 106(2003)DLT254; 2003(71)DRJ742; (2004)ILLJ53Del; 2004(1)SLJ474(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 27th November, 2002 passed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, respondent No. 1. The relevant portion of the said order dated 27th November, 2002 reads as under:'Subject: ID between the management of M/s Indian Oil Corp. and the concerned contractors & Petroleum Trade Union, New Delhi for regularization of 7 contract labour workers in the establishment - reg. Sir,I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. D-8/1/2002-ALC dated 21/05/2002 from the ALC (Dehradun) received in this Ministry on 29/05/2002 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:'The Union could not substantiate their contention for regular appointment by the management of Indian Oil Corporation'2. The learned counsel for the workman/petitioner, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, has assailed the said order on the ...

Post Master, General Post Office and Others Vs. Mohd. Naim

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 8.10.2002, passed by District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 921/2001 entitled - Shri Mohd. Naim v. Post Master and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Mohd. Naim had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before District Forum averring therein that on 15.4.2000 he had remitted a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by money order through Post Office, Paharganj, New Delhi and was issued a receipt, bearing No. 1071 dated 15.4.2000 by the postal authorities. The money order, sent by the respondent, was addressed to his wife Smt. Nasreen Begum at village Chimra Munger, Post Office Munger Chimba, District Munger (Bihar). As that money order, sent by respondent, was not received by the payee, he...

Contemperory Packaging Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC510

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11-12-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner who rejected the refund claim of the appellants being hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.2. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the refund claim of the appellants falls within the ambit of doctrine of unjust enichment or not as propounded by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Indus. Ltd. v. UOI -1997 (89) E.L.T.247 (S.C.).3. The learned Counsel has contended that since the duty sought to be refunded, was paid under protest by the appellants, the above said doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply and as such the claim of the appellants for refund of the duty, though paid under the provisional assessment, had been wrongly rejected by the authorities below. The learned Counsel, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the Apex...

Polar Marmo Agglomerates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC493

1. This is an appeal at the instance of M/s. Polar Marmo Agglomerates Ltd. who imported certain plant and machinery from M/s. Breton S.P.A.Industria Meccanica, Italy as part of the collaboration agreement dated 20-6-89 entered into between the parties. The issue for consideration relates to the valuation of the plant and machinery thus imported. The Commissioner (Appeals) while affirming the order of the adjudicating authority took the view that fee for transfer of know-how and also for assembling and start up of the plant are to be added to the assessable value of the imported plant and machinery. The above finding is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the importer.2. Polar Marmo Agglomerates Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was engaged in the activity of developing, inter alia, Agglomerated Marble Slabs and Agglomerated Marble Tiles. For the purpose of developing agglomerated stones the appellant entered into a foreign collaboration agreement dated 2...

M.K. Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT98TriDel

1. M/s. M.K. Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 24/2002 dated 23-9-2002 by which the Commissioner, Central Excise has classified their product MAKFELT Jute/Hessian base roofing felt coated with blown grade bitumen under sub-heading 5907.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and has also disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 92/94-C.E., dated 25-4-1994, 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97, 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 and Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-9-2000.2. We heard Shri A.N. Haksar, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants, and Shri Jagdish Singh, learned D.R. for Revenue. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of by considering the availability of benefit of the Notifications issued from time to time without going into the question of the classification of impugned product. The Appellants manufacture, inter alia, Jute/hessian based roofing felt ...

Concorde Overseas Private Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC793

1. Both Revenue and Licensee are in appeal against the same adjudication Order-in-Original No. SKS/CC/ICD/TKD/49/2001, dated 23-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Revenue's appeal has been filed by the Adjudicating Commissioner himself pursuant to a direction by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.2. The adjudication proceedings arose on account of failure to meet export obligation in respect of 6 kgs. imported gold. Gold in question was imported by M/s. MMTC Ltd. supplied to the appellant M/s. Concorde Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for conversion into ornaments. On account of the failure to utilize the gold for manufacture into ornament and export the same, the impugned order confiscated the 6 kgs gold absolutely (without option to redeem on payment of fine). The confiscation has been ordered for violation of the provisions of Sections 111(j) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-was imposed on M/s. Concorde Ove...

Punsumi Foils and Components Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC815

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs confirming against the appellants a demand of Customs duty of over Rs. one crore (with interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum) under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act read with Sections 72(1) and 61(2) of the Act, confiscating the imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Act with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 crore and imposing on the appellants a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act.2. The appellants were an Electronics Hardware Technology Park (EHTP) unit under the 100% Export-Oriented Scheme, engaged in the manufacture and export of Aluminium Cans (housings) for Aluminium Electrolytic capacitors and Lead Tabs for Electrolytic Capacitors, both failing under sub-heading 8532.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. They were entitled to import specified goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 96/93-Cus dated 2.3.93 (as amended) for the manufacture and...

Prince Gutka Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)88ITD533(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee has been preferred against the order dated 23.2.2002 of the ld. CIT(A)-III New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. "That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred, both on the facts of the case and as per law, in upholding the reassessment of the income of the assessee company Under Section 147 without appreciation that the initiation of reassessment proceedings Under Section 147 were time barred in view of proviso to Section 147." 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred, both on the facts of the case and as per law, in reassessing the income of the appellant company Under Section 147 since by restoring to provisions of Section 147, the AO has reviewed the order of his predecessor, which is in contravention of the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jindal Photo Films Ltd. 234 ITR 170." 3. "That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the reassessment of the income of the appellant company Under Section 147, inspite of the fact brought to ...

M.C.D. Vs. Workman (Mates) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)533; 106(2003)DLT59; 2003(70)DRJ110; 2004(1)SLJ199(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 9th October, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Delhi. By the impugned order the Tribunal has granted parity to the Mates working in M.C.D. with the Mates working in C.P.W.D. The terms of reference were as follows: 'Whether the mates in the Engineering Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 1.1.73 and revised to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 1.1.86 at par with their counter parts working in CPWD and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?' 2. In granting the parity the Tribunal has recorded the following evidence of the Commissioner, M.C.D.: 'It is correct that even in MCD job of mate is to as per documents R & MW1/9. Supervise the work of an unskilled worker. It is correct that various duties mentioned in Ex. WW1/19 by the mates in MCD are performed by mates in CPWD. Again scale is more or less the same dutie...

Shri Jafar Saddique and ors., Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)149; 105(2003)DLT263; 2003(69)DRJ311

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are occupants of portions of khasra No. 446/443 Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Delhi and have constructed chemist shop, medical store, barber shop, residence etc. Thus, the portions in possession of the petitioners are being used for different purposes.2. The petitioners claim to be occupying the properties prior to 1980, though no proof of the same has been submitted along with the writ petition. The earliest proof of occupation is a notice issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') from 1st April, 1981 onwards. The petitioners were assessed to damages and paid the damages from time to time.3. In the writ petition, the petitioners have contended that no order of demolition or removal can be passed without complying with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of the PP Act. Since the petitioners were apprehending such an action by the respondents, the writ petitions were filed seek...