Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Dhingra and ors. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limite ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi161; 2003(70)DRJ470

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have sought issuance of directions to the Respondent No.1 (i) to disburse the payments in respect of claims made by the petitioners under their Mediclaim Policies along with interest thereon and, (ii) to renew the Mediclaim Policy of the petitioners on the original terms and conditions including the premium payable as per the previous year's policy.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner No.1 (Shri Ashok Kumar Dhingra) had taken the following Mediclaim Policies as indicated in the table below:-S.No. Policy No. From To1 48/96/0024 13/05/95 12/05/962 48/98/418 12/01/98 11/01/993 48/99/612 12/01/99 11/01/004 48/2000/577 12/01/00 11/01/015 48/2001/405 12/01/01 11/01/023. All the other petitioners being the family members of Petitioner No.1 were also covered under the above Mediclaim Policies which were provided by the Respondent No.1. It is clear that after the first policy there was a break of about two...

The Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on following grounds :- "That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 1,68,71,980/- to the valuation of closing stock by not accepting the change in the method of valuation of closing of levy sugar to lower of cost or realizable value from lower of cost or average realizable value of levy and free sale sugar. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing inter alia that the very fact that the appellant changed the method of valuation again in AY 1993-94 shows that the change in the relevant AY 91-92 was not bona fide. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not directing the exclusion of Rs 5,51,94,292/- from the income of the appellant. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing inter alia that 'the contract receipts were thus realized as per the terms of the contract agreement: and 'the bank guarantees which had been furnished for the removal...

Aditya Cement Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC650

1. In these 13 appeals, filed by M/s. Aditya Cement, the issue involved is eligibility to Modvat Credit under the provisions of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We heard Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate for the Appellants, and Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR for Revenue. The submissions made by them and our findings on them are recorded below.3.1 Learned Advocate mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) have disallowed the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the capital goods used in Mines on the ground that the basic principle of extending the Modvat Credit on capital goods is with reference to their use in the factory and that the mines are not part of the factory premises as the approved ground plan of factory premises does not include the mines. He submitted that the mines in the present matters are situated across the road and the factory and mines are divided only by a public road; that, therefore the mines would fall under the category of precincts of the fac...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.M. Steels (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1083TriDel

1. The Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-appeal, in all these three appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the Order-in-original by setting aside the confiscation of the goods and redemption fine and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- each on the respondents.2. The proceedings were initiated against the respondents as certain excessive goods were found in their premises at the time of visit by the officers of the Central Excise on 15-11-2000. They were served with Show cause notices proposing confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the show cause notices and ordered confiscation of the seized goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty of various amounts as detailed in the Order-in-original, besides personal penalty on the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order and reduced penalty to Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents.3. The learned SDR has contended that onc...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT351TriDel

1. The dispute raised in the present appeal is whether sales from depots and consignment agents' premises are required to be treated as sales to different classes of buyers, as distinguished from sale on ex-factory basis. The appeal of the Revenue contends that the sales from depots and consignment agents' premises should be treated as sales to different classes of buyers than sales from factory gate. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Taparia Tools Ltd. reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 306 (LB) and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of India v. Madras Rubber Factory reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T.433 (S.C.).2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that 70% of the goods were sold on ex-factory basis and the remaining goods were removed to depots and consignment agents' premises for sale. In view of this, he held that the entire goods were required to be assessed based on the ex-factory sale...

Pradeep Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT977TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 8-11-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the Order-in-Original, as time barred.2. The learned Counsel has contended that no copy of the order was received by the appellant nor was ever refused by him when it was sent by post. The appellant came to know about the passing of the order only when he received notice for recovery of the amount of penalty imposed on him and thereafter he applied for copy and on receipt of the same, filed the appeal. According to the counsel the appeal was, within time from the date of the receipt of the copy which was 31-5-2002.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR had reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that since the appellant refused to receive the copy of the order sent by post, it amounted to service of notice of the passing of the order against him. Therefore, the appeal had been ...

Agrasen Re-rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: 157(2003)DLT122

1. The appellants filed this appeal against determination of the annual capacity of their re-rolling mills by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The contention of the appellants is that they are manufacturing hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel and are governed by the provisions of compounded levy scheme. They applied for change in the parameters of their re-rolling which was allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 24-10-97. After change in the parameters of their re-rolling mills, the capacity of production determined as per formula came to 3103.89 MT but the Commissioner has determined their annual capacity of production as 6116.160 MT on the basis of production for the year 1996-97 on the ground that Rule 5 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mill Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 provides that in case the annual capacity determined by the formula in Rule 3(3) in respect of a mill is less than the actual production of the mill during the financial year,...

Aristo Pulps and Papers Ltd. and Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and an ...

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC183

1. The Ist respondent-The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Civil Suit O.S. 160/90 before the Civil Court at Kota (Rajasthan) against appellants 1 to 9 (who were defendants 1 to 9, and hereinafter referred to as appellants/defendants), and the 2nd respondent in the appeal (as 10th defendant) for the recovery of Rs. 73,62,654.15 with future interest.After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force, the said Suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') and was taken on file as O.A.198/96. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 10.10.2001, directing the issue of Recovery Certificate for recovery of Rs. 73,62,654/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of Suit till realisation payable by defendants 1 to 9 jointly and severally. He further directed issue of the Recovery Ce...

Himalaya Food Co. Vs. Dhanpat and Others

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 7.3.1997, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi Complaint Case No. 55/94 entitled Shri Dhanpat and Ors. v. M/s. Himalaya Food Company. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, are that S/Shri Dhanpat, Kiran and Balbir Singh, the respondents had a filed a joint complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the appellant before the District Forum averring therein that they as farmers used to grow vegetables, predominantly, potatoes every year. In the complaint, filed by the respondent, it was stated that respondent No. 3, Shri Balbir Singh was a cutlivator, on record in respect of Khasra Nos. (Pt.) 879, 880, 881, 882, 886 and 914 of village Madanpur Khadar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, it was stated that ...

S.K. Anand Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, dated 28.8.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 3168/2001 - entitled Shri S.K. Anand v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant Shri S.K. Anand had filed a complaint before the District Forum on the ground that he had applied to the respondent for the release of I.P. connection and had completed all the necessary formalities required and thereafter had been allotted electric connection bearing K. No. ILP-503-132473 for a sanctioned load of 120 HP. The appellant had also duly deposited the amount of Rs. 70,513/- as directed by the respondent for the release of the above said connection. Despite having made the necessary payment and completing the required formalities, the said connection was not energized by the respondent on the ground ...