Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Damyanti

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 4.6.1997 passed by the District Forum, Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 372/97 entitled Smt. Damyanti v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent along with her husband had obtained a joint Life Insurance policy from the appellant for a sum of Rs. 53,000/- plus bonus w.e.f. 28.12.1988. Thereafter, said policy was renewed every year, on payment of the requisite premium. The husband of the respondent Sh. Braham Dutt Sharma expired on 19.8.1991. Accordingly, the respondent filed her claim for the sum assured under the policy together with all the benefits. However, the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 31.3.1993 on the ground that the deceased assured had suppressed material facts relating to his health at the time of obtaining the policy. The respondent ...

Unimode Calzatura Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC656

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Unimode Calzatura Ltd., the issue, involved is whether they were affixing the brand name of another person on the goods manufactured by them so as to make them ineligible for the benefit of small-scale exemption.2. Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture leather shoes bearing brand name "Caribou of London" which is their own brand name; that they had applied to Trade Mark Authority for registering brand name in their own name; that the brand name has also been published in the Trade Mark journal dated 8-1-2003 and it has been intimated by the Trade Mark Registry under letter dated 20-5-2003 that no notice of possession has been filed against application and required certificate of Trade Mark would be issued to them in due course of time. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that not even an iota of evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the brand name "Caribou of London" is owned by some other ...

New India Electrical Indl. Co. (P) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT396TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. New India Electrical Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. E/306-321/98-B1, dated 4-3-98.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submits that as the factory of the applicants was closed since long the applicants neither received notice of hearing nor the Final Order dismissing their appeal; that they came to know about the passing of final order when the Range Supdt. Central Excise informed them about the same on or around 10-6-2003; that immediately the applicants approached the Tribunal's Registry under their letter dated 12-6-2003 requesting for a copy of final order; that immediately after getting the attested copy of the final order they had filed the application for restoration of their appeal; that they were pursuing the appeal but after closure of their factory they were not aware of the fate of their appeal; that in the interest of justice the appeal may be ...

Himmat Singh Gang Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT484TriDel

1. These are four applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty amounts, two by Tejmal Gang and the other two by Himmat Singh Gang. The lower authority imposed penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on these applicants. The authority also imposed penalties on them under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Shri Tejmal Gang in his application prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Commissioner under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act and Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act respectively. The prayer of Himmat Singh Gang is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalties of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Commissioner under Section 112(b) ibid and Section 74 ibid respectively.It appears from the records and submissions that 121 pieces (weighing 6890.500 gms) of primary gold with foreign markings, and 67 pieces (weighing 5557...

Himachal Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC27

1. This is an application by M/s. Himachal Oxygen (P) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. 47/2002-C, dated 7,2.2002.2. Shri G.N. Srinivasan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Tribunal's Final Order was passed on 7.2.2002 and the ROM. application has been filed by them on 6.4.2003 which is within 4 years of passing the Tribunal's Final Order; that as directed by the Registry they have also filed an application for condonation of delay though, according to them, there is no delay as the period of 4 years from the date of Final Order would be available to them for filing the application for rectification of mistake and the amendment made in Section 35C(2) by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 11.5.2002 would be applicable only to those orders passed on or after 11.5.2002. A preliminary objection was raised at this stage that the application for rectification of mistake itself is not maintainable as the applicants had filed ah appeal before the Supreme Court which sta...

Bpr Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT336TriDel

1. M/s. BPR Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd. have filed this Appeal against confirmation of Central Excise duty and equivalent amount of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order No.458/CE/DLH/2002, dated 9-8-2002.2.1. Shri P.C Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants process cotton and man-made fabrics; that on introduction of the Scheme for independent processors of Textile Fabrics with hot-air stenters in December, 1998, they filed the requisite declaration dated 18-12-1998 in terms of "Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998" (ACP Rules in short); that the Commissioner by Order dated 15-1-99 fixed provisionally the annual capacity of Rs. 28.28 lakhs and duty liability at Rs. 3,00,032/-per month; that the Commissioner finally fixed duty liability at Rs. 3,49,568/- per month under Order dated 16-4-1999 on the basis of 2.33 chamber in one hot-air stenter after including the length of galleries attached to the cham...

L.D. Industries and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT459TriDel

1. These appeals have come up for consideration pursuant to order of remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment dated 4.12.2002 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6161 of 1999 and C.A. Nos. 6152/99 and 6157/99. we heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned DR.2. The Hon'ble supreme court after confirming the finding of this Tribunal in order 27.7.99 as to the inter-relationship between the three units, namely, Supreme Washers (P) Ltd., L.D. Industries and LR Industries, partnership concerns remanded the matter back to this Tribunal for the limited purpose of deciding the applicability of Circular dated 1.3.56 as far as M/s. Supreme Washers Pvt. is concerned.Relevant paragraphs of the judgment is reproduced below:- "In regard to the second contention of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 1999, it is seen fro the Circular dated 1.3.1956, which according to the appellants have been reiterated by another subsequent Circular No. 6/92 dated 29th of May, 1992 by ...

Himachal Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT296TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Himachal Oxygen (P) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. 47/2002-C, dated 7-2-2002 [2002 (141) E.L.T. 760 (T)].2. Shri G.N. Srinivasan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Tribunal's Final Order was passed on 7-2-2002 and the ROM application has been filed by them on 6-4-2003 which is within 4 years of passing the Tribunal's Final Order; that as directed by the Registry they have also filed an application for condonation of delay though, according to them, there is no delay as the period of 4 years from the date of Final Order would be available to them for filing the application for rectification of mistake and the amendment made in Section 35C(2) by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 11-5-2002 would be applicable only to those orders passed on or after 11-5-2002. A preliminary objection was raised at this stage that the application for rectification of mistake itself is not maintainable as the applicants had filed an appeal before ...

Vishal Exports Overseas Limited Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC939Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellant exported about 4.8 lakhs pieces of coffee mugs between February and November 2000. The export price (FOB) was US$ 3.40 per piece. The export goods were eligible for DEPB benefit. Accordingly, DEPB credit as available (11% or 10%) was also claimed. Since DEPB credit cannot exceed 50% of the market value of the goods the aprellant declared a market value of Rs.52.50 per piece which was worked out at 150% of the appellant's price. Purchases were from manufactureres in Rajasthan and according to the Central Excise clearance documents (AR-4) the sale price of the goods was Rs 35 per piece.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs proceeded against the appellant by charging that he has misdclared the FOB value at US$ 3.40 (about Rs 157 per piece). The order of adjudication held that the export price is not "genuine", since for a local purchase price of Rs 35 per piece, export price cannot be as high as Rs 157 (450%) and that a competitive export market would not accept such ...

Girdhari Dubey Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC532

1. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Commissioner dt.25.8.2003 pursuant to the direction in our order dt. 18.8.2003.2. We find that the affidavit is totally inadequate and inappropriate.In her affidavit the Commissioner has referred to the names of several officers who according to her had associated with her 'in persuing the process of law'. She has not given any explanation for inordinate delay which had taken place at different stages. For example the order dt.27.11.2001 was received in the office of the Commissioner on 11.1.2002.The reference application was filed only on 10.7.2002. There is only a bald statement that the order 'was taken up for examination by various sections of this Commissionerate viz. Adjudication Branch, Tribunal and Review Section and Legal Section'. No proper explanation is given for seven months delay nor the name of the Commissioner-incharge is referred.3. The Commissioner was aware that on 1.5.2003 this Tribunal granted time till 21.7.2003 ...