Delhi Court June 2003 Judgments

R.L. Chopra Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

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 4.4.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 141/2003 -entitled Shri R.L. Chopra v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, Shri R.L. Chopra, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/MTNL. That complaint, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed in default for the first time on 13.9.2001. However, vide subsequent order, the complaint dismissed in default vide order dated 13.9.2001, was ordered to be restored to its original number subject to payment of costs. The petitioner/complainant again defaulted and in default on th...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Harish Joshi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 9.11.1998, passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1407/1998 (old) No. 2142/1994) - entitled Shri Harish Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2. The relevant facts, in brief are, that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum with the grievance that his claim in respect of insurance policy No. 111445616 for Rs. 50,000/- had been wrongly repudiated by the appellant. 3. The wife of the respondent Smt. Beena Joshi had taken an insurance policy for Rs. 50,000/- commencing from 28.10.1991. However, Smt. Beena Joshi expired in R.B.T.B. Hospital, Kingsway Camp on 2.6.1993 and was diagnosed as suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. Accordingly the respondent being the nominee in the policy filed a claim with the Insurance Company. The said claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the insured had concealed material fa...

General Manager (Telecom) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC800

1. These two appeals by General Manager (Telecom), Chandigarh related to the same issue, demand for interest on the ground that there was delay in depositing service tax payable on Telecom service by the appellant Accordingly, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of under this common order. The alleged delay in regard to the payment of service tax arose for different months between 1995-1998. The allegation is that under Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, a service provider is to make payment of service tax by the 15th day of the month immediately following the calendar month in which the amount of service tax is required to be collected, while it was observed from the quarterly returns that there was delay of varying periods in effecting the service tax payment. The contention of the appellant was that there was no delay at all in paying service tax to the Central Government inasmuch as the entire amounts payable by customers towards both telecom service and se...

Tejal Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT364TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 16-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding the duty demand of Rs. 17,274.34 with penalty of Rs. 1,000/-.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants cleared Paper Grey Board valued at Rs. 3,45,486.71 to their merchant-exporter, M/s. Auro Sales Corpn. without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 13(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules. This clearance was made by them under the self-removal procedure on the strength of B-1 General Bond executed by their merchant-exporter in favour of the Asstt.Commissioner, Bombay, from where the goods were exported by the exporter. The Block Transfer Certificate which was to be procured from the Maritime Commissioner and produced before the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the manufacturing factory of the appellants, was not procured and produced prior to the signing of the AR-4. This ...

Rama Vision Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT664TriDel

1. The Order impugned in this appeal has been passed pursuant to this Tribunal's Final Order of remand No. 1053/99-A, dated 28-7-99. The operative portion of that order reads as under: "3. On going through the submissions with reference to the impugned order we find that though the party has taken a specific plea with reference to the time-bar issue, same has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) since he has not given a find on time-bar issue, we are of the view that this matter will have to go back for re-consideration and accordingly we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner to decide the issue afresh including time-bar issue and to pass an order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellant. The appellant may make use of this opportunity to substantiate their claim during the readjudication proceedings.2. The issue involved was the claim of the appellant for refund of over Rs. 8 lakhs which had been paid during the period 1...

Vijay Tanks and Vessels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC830

1. The appellant is manufacturer of iron and steel drums and containers. The said manufacture is on job work basis for M/s. IOC Ltd. The present appeal relates to the demand for duty short-levied on account of alleged undervaluation of the containers so manufactured and supplied to IOC Ltd. The demand is for the period April 1996 to January 2001 and Show-cause Notice was issued on 15.4.2001.2. The contention of the appellant is that the demand has been raised beyond the period of limitation provided in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. It has been submitted that the normal period provided under Section 11A is only six months and the extended period of five years is available only in exceptional circumstances involving fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant's submission is that in the present case the full facts covering the transaction between the parties were known to the jurisdictional Central Excise O...

India Cements Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT260TriDel

1. In the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem it is submitted that the department was under bona fide impression that once reference petition is filed, the order passed by this Tribunal will "become in operative automatically" and therefore, the refund claim cannot be considered during that period. The above view was taken by the department on the basis of the legal advice given by Shri K.Veeraraghavan, Advocate and Central Government Standing Counsel under his communication dated 1-8-2001. Later when the correct position was made clear to them, the applicant has been granted refund of an amount of Rs. 11,87,317/- with interest @ 6% which will come to Rs. 16,72,277.66.2. Since the officers have acted on the basis of the legal advice, we find no reason to proceed against them further in this matter. The Misc. Application, therefore, stands dismissed....

Parshant Glass Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC488

1. Pursuant to the order passed by us dated 22.4.2003 the Commissioner of Customs has filed an affidavit. In paragraph 14 he states as follows: "That at the material period, a number of officers were posted in the concerned Group and different Commissioners were posted at the Kolkata Customs Port. Therefore, it is difficult to find out the particular officer responsible for delay. Moreover, in the earlier paragraphs the facts of the case have been clearly narrated showing that the Department could not implement the order properly as the original copy of the order/certified copy had not reached the Custom House even though the Department has issued several letters to the Assistant Registrar for the copy of those orders. However, in terms of the direction, the case file is being forwarded for kind perusal of the Hon'ble CEGAT. The relevant files, which contained the communication between the parties, are also forwarded herewith separately for necessary action of the Hon'ble Tribunal." W...

German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal filed by M/s. German Remedies Ltd. is posted today for hearing the stay application. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, we stay the recovery of the entire amount of duty and penalty and take up the Appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri M.P. Dev Nath, learned Advocate, submitted that the demand has been confirmed against the Appellants on the ground that after importing Somatosan injection, Fludara injection from foreign supplier, they had carried out a process of labeling and re-labeling of packing from bulk to retail to render the product marketable invoking Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. He, further, submitted that the foreign suppliers have been marketing the impugned injections without the indication of the MRP; that in other words, the products were being marketed by the original manufacturer and therefore, the process undertaken by the Appellants cannot be treated as to render the...

Indian thermoplastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC489

1. The applicant in the above miscellaneous application submits that pursuant to the final order passed by this Tribunal dated 20-6-1996 reported as Indian Thermoplastic (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Kandla -1996 (87) E.L.T. 536 they are entitled to the return of the following amounts : 2. The applicant alleges that in spite of numerous reminders including letters addressed to the Commissioner by name, the amounts as mentioned above are not being returned to the applicant. The applicant further submitted that they are entitled, to return of the amount along with interest. When the application came up for hearing on 22-4-2003 along with similar applications, we passed an order directing the respondent to file an affidavit explaining the delay in not implementing the order passed by the Tribunal. There was direction to refer to the frames of the officers in charge during the relevant period. Pursuant thereto Shri Sahab Singh, Commissioner of Customs, Kandla has filed an affidavit da...