Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

Smt. Veer Bala and ors. Vs. Shri Piara Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)ACC164; 2004ACJ1771; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)282; 106(2003)DLT111; 2003(71)DRJ678

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellants had filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Mr.Anand Swarup Goel, husband of appellant no.1 and father of other appellants, alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus at the relevant time by its driver-respondent no.3. The claim petition was filed not only against respondent no.3, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation but also against the Delhi Transport Corporation on the allegations that the bus was being plied at the instance of D.T.C. The driver of the bus was also made a party to the claim petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after the pleadings were completed framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Sh.Anand Swarup Goel sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.RSL-5937 on the part of the respondent no.1? 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. Whether respondent no.4. Is not liable for the r...

Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)572; 106(2003)DLT160; 2003(71)DRJ675

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. It is not in dispute that initially the reference sought by the respondent No.3/workman was refused on 22nd March, 1977. Thereafter it has also not been disputed that the reference was made on 22nd May, 1979 without giving any opportunity or hearing to the petitioner. 2. This Order of reference dated 22nd May, 1979 has been challenged in the writ petition on the ground of violation of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments :1. I.T.I. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka & Others : (1978)ILLJ544Kant 2. American Express Inter. Banking Corp. Vs Union of India : (1979)IILLJ22Cal 3. G. Muthukrishnan Vs New Horizon Sugar Mills (FB) 1980 LAB. I. C. 475 All the above judgments hold that in case a reference is refused at one stage and it is at a later stage referred for adjudication, the reference cannot be made without notice to the party affected by the reference.3. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. There is su...

Cit Vs. Shambhu Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN15(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question for opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the Will of L. Acharaj Ram dated 28-10-1963, half share in the immovable property and shares in the companies etc. which devolved on the assessed on the death of his father were held by him in his capacity as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself, his wife and sons and not in his individual capacity ?'2. No one appears for the assessed. We have accordingly heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, senior standing counsel for the revenue.Since answer to the question raised in the present reference stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of the assessed himself, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. We may, however, note that the reference pertains to the a...

S.V.U.L. Projects Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. M/s. S.V.U.L. Projects Limited, a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the complainant company) has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring therein that the complainant company is engaged in the business of off-shore and on-shore drilling workover job for various public sector oil companies on contract. It is stated that the complainant company took an insurance policy from O.P. No.1, insuring with it an electrically operated Workover Rig, being Rig No. Shiv-7, Wilson-65, SL No. 10514 (100 ton capacity) against physical damages and consequential loss, i.e. loss of hire damage with all risk covered, being Marine Hull Policy No. 22/323202/00101 valid from 16.6.1999 to 15.6.2000 for a total sum of Rs. 4,72,50,000/- including LOH of 90 days. It is stated that the complainant company deployed the said Rig for workover operation at Shiv Sagar, Assa...

Cce Vs. Bhawani Shanker Casting Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC642

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Respondents, M/s. Bhawan Shanker Castings Ltd. are required to discharge their duty liability under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act or under Section 3A of the Act.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned DR, submitted that the Respondents manufacture Non-alloy steel ingots/billets in their induction furnace; that they filed an application dated 29.3.97 opting to work under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Respondents again under their letter dated 15.1.97 intimated the Commissioner that they had obtained an order worth Rs. 1 crore for supply of castings to Rail Coach Factory and as they would ordinarily be producing steel castings and may produce ingots also, they would be discharging their duty liability w.e.f, 16.1.98 under Section 3 of the Act after availing Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has directed the Respondents to pay duty under ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Guljag Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC638Tri(Delhi)

1. In this Appeal filed by Revenue, the issue relates to availability of Modvat credit under Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd. have taken Modvat credit of duty paid in respect of storage tanks structure of monorail and platform for drying towers, F.A. towers/I.A. towers/Acid pump tank, all classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that Modvat credit of the duty paid on the goods falling under Chapter 73 is not admissible during the relevant period under Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules; that therefore, credit allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order in respect of these goods is bad in law. He, further, submitted that structure of monorail and platform from drying tower etc. are also appropriately classifiable under Chapter 73 which is not covered by Modvat Credit Rules; that these also c...

Laxmi Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT683TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 10-12-1997, the Central Excise Officers intercepted one tempo carrying goods i.e. copper ingots valued at Rs. 4,46,975/- without any covering invoice/duty paying document.The goods were seized and on completion of investigation and show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty of Rs. 67,046/-, besides confiscating the goods and also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and further penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) has modified that order by setting aside the confiscation of the goods being not available having been released provisionally, reduced penalty to Rs. 65,000/- and also set aside the confiscation of the vehicle.3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. Admittedly, the appe...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC356Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, the issue involved is whether the product 'Zulamia' manufactured by M/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order or under sub-heading No.3305.99 as claimed by the Department.2. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that Note 1(d) to Chapter 30 specifically excludes preparations of Chapter 33 of the Tariff even if they have therapeutic or prophylactic properties; that further Note 2 to Chapter 33 of the Tariff provides that Heading Nos. 33.03 to 33.07 apply, inter alia, to products, whether or not mixed, suitable for use as goods of these heading and put up in packing with labels, literature or other indications that they are for use as cosmetics or toilet preparations or put up in a form clearing specialized to such use and includes, products whether or not they contain subsidiary p...

Bal Krishna Textile Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT740TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Bal Krishna Textile Ltd., the issue involved is whether abatement of duty is available to them under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants process man made fabrics with effect from 16-12-98 and availed the procedure for payment of duty on compounded basis under Rule 96ZQ read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that under their letter dated 28-1-99, they informed the Assistant Commissioner their intention to close one of their stenter from 1-2-99 to 31-3-99 for want of work; that they accordingly, closed the said stenter at 8 A.M. on 1-2-99; that the stenter was sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise at 1700 hrs on 1-2-99; that thereafter they informed the Commissioner of Central Excise under their letter dated 11-2-99 that they would now be discharging the duty in respect of two stenters; that under their letter dated 25-2-99 they informed the Asstt. Commissioner abou...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Nav Bharat Engg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT83TriDel

1. 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 of the adjudicating authority and set aside the duty and penalty against the respondents.2. The learned SDR has contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is illegal as the respondents had cleared the dutiable goods without payment of duty after having crossed the exemption limit. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and for that reason, the order-in-original of that authority had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. I have heard both sides. The bare perusal of the record shows that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sawing machines and parts thereof, besides other goods. Their goods, as alleged in the show cause notice, were classifiable under Heading 8479 and accordingly th...