Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Raja Gogia

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 30th May, 2000, passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 293/1999 - entitled Shri Raja Gogia v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Raja Gogia, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, in the District Forum, averring therein that he got his Maruti Van insured with the appellants on 14th July, 1997 at 9.30 p.m. and had issued a blank cheque towards payment of premium in respect of the insurance taken by him. It was stated that next morning i.e., on 15th July, 1997 at about 6.30 a.m. he noticed that his Maruti Van had been stolen. It was stated that about the theft of the vehicle in question the Authorities of the police were informed and a cla...

Manohar Khosla Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. In this complaint, filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it is averred by the complainant that he got himself registered for a LIG flat under the registration scheme on new pattern (NPRS) 1979, floated by the O.P. It is stated that at the time of registration, it was represented by the O.P. that the tentative cost of the flat to be allotted to him would be about Rs. 18,000/- whereas he had been allotted a flat after a lapse of almost 19 years in January, 1999 for Rs. 4,45,600/- with the option to pay on cash down basis or by instalments, on hire-purchase basis. The complainant had represented accordingly to the O.P. against the cost of the flat and the inordinate delay in allotment of the flat but since no response was received from the O.P. the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission praying for directions to the O.P. to allot him a flat at the original cost of Rs. 18,000/...

Indian Petro Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT548TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against imposition of penalty of over Rs. 11 lakhs and demand for interest. The demand arises for wrong availment of Modvat credit by the appellants. The credit was availed twice in respect of the same goods, once on invoices issued by the supplier, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and second time on 57E Certificate issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. It is the contention of the appellants that credit was taken both the times against stipulated documents, invoices and 57E Certificates. It is also pointed out that once the mistake in taking the credit was pointed out, immediately the credit was reversed. It is their contention that there was no intention on their part to avail themselves of excess credit or to commit any fraud on the Revenue. The credit was taken as permissible under the rules against stipulated documents and the mistake was the result of mistake committed by IOCL in issuing 57E Certif...

Sanket Food Products P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT231TriDel

1. Heard. I have gone through the impugned order and the material on record and in my view the appellants have a very strong prima-facie case for waiver. Moreover, they had already deposited Rs. 1 lakh with the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, their stay application is allowed.2. With the consent of both sides, I proceed to decide the appeal itself on merits.3. The facts are not much dispute. The officers of the Central Excise visited the premises of Vinesh Traders on 29-2-2000 and found 23 boras and 2 bags containing Goa-1000 Guthkha stored therein without having any Sl. No., batch No. and date of manufacture. The said trader allegedly purchased those goods from the present appellants, who are the manufacturers. The appellants were accordingly served with show cause notice proposing confirmation of duty on the ground that they had clandestinely removed and sold the goods to the above said trader without payment of duty. The confiscation of the goods was also proposed. After getting...

JaIn Commercial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC365Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner of Customs held that Tungsten Coils Reject imported by the appellant is scrap and classifiable under heading 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff and requires a specific licence. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the release of some goods on payment of redemption fine. The personal penalty was also imposed on the appellants.2. The contention of the appellant is that the Tungsten Coils Rejects are used in the manufacture of the electric bulbs. They produced bills regarding the sale of Tungsten Coils Reject to the manufacturer of electric bulbs. The contention of the appellant is that as they are used as such by the manufacturer of bulbs, therefore, the Tungsten Coils Reject cannot be classifiable under heading 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff as Waste and Scrap.3. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rama Trading Co. v...

Himalaya International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT773TriDel

1. The appellants are an EOU. The impugned order has been passed demanding duty and imposing penalty on them on the ground that goods (canned vegetables) were cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area, contrary to the permission granted by the Development Commissioner, and without payment of appropriate excise duty under the proviso to Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the appellant's contention that the permission granted by the Development Commissioner covered canned vegetables also and that the rate of duty applicable is the rate under Section 3(1) and not the rate in terms of proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act.2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. We find that the dispute about permission of Development Commissioner is not of much relevance for determining this appeal and the dispute of substance is the issue as to what should be the rate of duty on the goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area. The impugned order has demanded duty on the good...

Kothari Pouches Limited Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT927TriDel

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The learned Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellants paid additional duty at the rate of 10% instead of 18% during the period in question..3. The contention of the appellant is that as pre budget for the year 2001-2002, the rate of duty of Pan Masala containing Tobacco were Basic Excise duty at the rate of 16%, additional Excise duty at the rate of 18%, Special Excise duty at the rate of 16% and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) at the rate of 10%. The total of these duties comes to 60%. The contention of the appellant is that while clearing the Pan Masala containing Tobacco they by mistake paid additional excise duty at the rate of 10% instead of 18% and on the other hand, paid NCCD at the rate of 18% instead of 10%. The contention of the appellant is that in all they paid 60% duty and if the differential duty in respect ...

Marble Art Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT370TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.AKR/CC/TDK/105/2002, dated 4-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad,' New Delhi. Under the impugned order the Commissioner confiscated six consignments of marble blocks imported by the appellant and gave them an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. He also imposed "a nominal penalty" of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant. The confiscation of the goods was made under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the penalty is under Section 112(a) of the same Act.2. It is the contention of the appellants that the entire proceedings were contrary to facts of the case and relevant legal provisions. It is submitted that the proceedings were on the basis that there was an excess weight of about 12.6 M.T. when compared with the imported quantity of about 145 Mt. It is the submission of the appellant that transaction in marble blocks takes place on volume basis and not on weight basis and that...

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT75TriDel

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd., against the Orders-in-Original, the common issue involved is whether Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) is marketable and whether it is classifiable under Heading 27.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Heading No. 27.09/27.11 of the Tariff.2. Sh. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellants manufacture Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) from natural gas; that natural gas is the mixture of various hydrocarbons and broadly consists of C1, C2, C3, C4 (Propane & Butane); that in the process of extraction of LPG, a mixture of C5 and C6 called as NGL emerges inevitably; that NGL is highly unstable in the atmospheric temperature and pressure and as such is not marketable; that it had never been marketed; that the moment NGL in the liquid state enters Lean Gas Header, in the Lean Gas Pipeline it mixes with the lean gas, gets vaporised and becomes part of the Lean Gas in the gaseous state an...

Punjab General Mfg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT238TriDel

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. The consultant has sent a request for adjournment on the ground that in another appeal involving the same issue, is pending before the Bench 'B' and the present appeals be taken up after the decision on the said appeal. I do not find any sufficient ground to adjourn the matter, especially when these appeals are fixed consideration of COD applications only.2. In all these appeals, the appellants have sought condonation of delay in filing the appeals. From the record, I find that all the COD applications have been filed by the consultant on behalf of the appellants wherein he has stated that due to his illness, the appeals could not be filed within the period of limitation. None of the application is signed by any of the appellants. Under the law, the consultant is not competent to file the COD applications on behalf of the appellants. The applications are not even supported by any affidavit. Therefore, all the COD applications, bein...