Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Mando Brake Systems India Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC633

1. In this appeal at the instance of the importer challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Chennai dated 28.2.2003. The issue arising in this case for consideration is whether the technical licence fee can be loaded to the value of the goods imported by the appellant.2. The appellant is a joint venture company established with the objective of manufacture, fabrication, assembly and sale of fully automotive brake systems and related components. It entered into a Licence and Technical Assistance Agreement (LTAA) with Mando Machinery corporation, Korea. As per the terms of the agreement the appellant was to pay total sum of US$ 4,50,000 to Mando, Korea as consideration for "the rights and technical information granted, disclosed and furnished by" Mando, Korea. The sum was to be paid in four instalments. The agreement also provided for payment of royalty at 3% of the net ex-factory sale price of the licensed product. Since we are not concerned in this...

Newton Engg. and Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC540

1. These are 4 applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed as under :-(1) M/s. Newton Engg. & Constn. Co. 40,68117/- 40,68,117/-(2) Shri N. Gopinath, M.D. 1,00,000/-(3) M/s. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. 1,00,000/-(4) M/s. Chambal Fert. & Chem. Ltd. 1,00,000/- 2. Shri Arun Khosla, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicant No.1 was awarded a contract for the fabrication of 2.121 km. pipes and fittings of various specifications made out of mild steel plates for utility i.e. piping for circulation of water from the cooling tower to the various heat exchanger; that the steel plates are cut according to the diameter of the pipe and the same are bended to make a pipe, two edges are then welded to form a spool. Similarly, elbow and reducers are also fabricated from M.S. plates. The spools are then joined by reducers as per requirement and the pipeline so formed is laid in trenches at a depth of 2 to 3 metres. He, further, submitted that as per the s...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Npi Packaging (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT239TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31-3-2003, the issue relates to classification of products, namely, insulation freezer door, insulation drip tray/insulation pan baffle. According to the Revenue, these products are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8418.90, whereas the respondents had sought classification under Heading 3923.90 of the CETA. The adjudicating authority classified these goods under Heading No. 8418.90 as parts of refrigerator. But the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed that Order by following the ratio of law laid down by the Tribunal in Ilpea Paramount (P) Limited v. CCE, New Delhi, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 632 and held the classification under Heading 3923.19.3. Bare perusal of the impugned Order shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) himself has observed that in view of Sub-rule (b) of Rule 2 and Rule 3(a) of the General Interpretative Rule (Rules to the interpretation of the Schedule) the products seem to be c...

Mr. R.L. Rathore Vs. Delhi Power Supply Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)268; 106(2003)DLT566; 2003(71)DRJ655; 2003LabIC3284; 2004(2)SLJ265(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. Petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent imposing a penalty of 30 % cut in pension for a period of five years has filed the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner was issued three charge sheet. The first charge sheet was issued on 31.10.1990. Reply to the said charge sheet was filed by the petitioner. No action was taken on the said charge sheet by the respondent. Second charge sheet was issued on 14.3.1995 and reply was filed by the petitioner. No action was taken by the respondent. Subsequently, on 18.2.1997 another memo was issued to the petitioner. Reply was filed by the petitioner. Inquiry officer was appointed. On 20.4.98, Inquiry Officer gave the report that there was no substance of charges against the petitioner. Thereafter, another memo dated 28.12.99 was issued by Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Authority. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Discipli...

Shashi JaIn and ors. Vs. Rajinder Yadav and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)ACC262; 2004ACJ1966; 2003VIAD(Delhi)445; 106(2003)DLT525; 2003(71)DRJ649

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Since the only question involved in this case is whether the multiplier applied by the tribunal to arrive at just compensation payable to the appellants is correct and whether at the time of assessing compensation payable to the family of the deceased, the tribunal ought not have taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased, learned counsel for the parties state that as both these questions can be answered on the basis of the impugned judgment, it may not be necessary to requisition the file from the tribunal. I have, thereforee, proceeded to decide this appeal without waiting for the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. ADMIT. 2. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:- That the husband of the appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3 died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased at the time of his death was 41 years of age and was employed as a Juni...

Vijay Industries and Projects Limited Vs. National Fertilisers Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)418; 107(2003)DLT11

ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J.CP 237/2002 and CA 666/2002 :1. The present petition was filed by the petitioner praying for an order of winding-up of the respondent-company on the ground that it is indebted to the petitioner and that the respondent is unable to pay its debt. My attention is drawn to the resolution passed at the Board Committee Meeting of the Directors of the petitioner held on 30th January, 2002. It is also pointed out from the said resolution that the amount of Rs. 7,06,980/- has only been shown as undisputed amount. It is also the definite stand of the respondent in the reply filed that the balance amount of Rs. 16,77,655/- is disputed as the said amount relates to claim towards liquidated damages which according to the respondent is to be deducted by the respondent as liquidated damages under Clause 23 of the Agreement between the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the said amount cannot be deducted as liquidated damages and thereforee the petitioner...

The Leprosy Mission Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)666; 107(2003)DLT328; 2003(71)DRJ108

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.S.A. 67/85 is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.1.1985 of the Additional District Judge in E.C.A. No. 44 of 1982 which appeal was filed against dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents for claiming or recovering annual ground rent in excess of Rs.885/- per annum. The learned appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the appellate court, are -'that the lease was granted in respect of certain land on 8/12/1960 by the UOI in favor of Shri Dr. C.L. Katial. The plaintiff purchased the property from the said Dr. C.L. Katial, who conveyed the same to the plaintiff after getting due permission from the L&DO; Office acting for and on behalf of the defendant vide a duly registered deed of conveyance dated 4/7/1973. Dr. C.L. Katial in the year 1973 wanted to sell the property and consequently applied to the L&DO; for ...

Capt. Suneel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)553; AIR2004Delhi95; 107(2003)DLT224; II(2003)DMC671; 2003(70)DRJ669

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was married to Ms. Purnima, respondent No. 3, in the year 1995. After some time, strains developed in their marital relations. In the year 2001, the petitioner filed a petition against the respondent No. 3 for dissolution of his marriage with her by a decree of divorce. On the other hand, on a complaint by respondent No. 3, a case under Section 406/498-A IPC was registered against the petitioner and his parents. On 7th of June, 2001, the respondent No. 3 made an application to the Army Commander, Headquarters(Northern Command) for grant of maintenance allowance. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply thereto. The Army Commander, eventually, on 29th of October, 2001, made an order on the said application of respondent No. 3 sanctioning deduction @ 22% from the pay and allowances of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed instant writ petition.2. The stand of ...

Ms. Usha Anand and Vs. Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)350; [2003]264ITR14(Delhi)

J. D. KAPOOR J.1. This petition can be disposed of at the threshold as the chronological details about the dates of hearing fixed by the learned trial court for the purpose of pre-summoning evidence manifestly demonstrate the abuse of the process of the court. After summoning the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 35B/35C of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, prescribing a minimum sentence of six months the learned trial court fixed the matter for the first time on April 5, 1995, for pre-charge evidence. More than eight long years have passed. On as many as 26 occasions the matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence. The complainant is a Government department still no evidence has been recorded till date. 2. The details of proceedings and dates given in para. 25 of the petition, tell a very sorry tale and the infraction of the fundamental right of the accused enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that every accused charged with a criminal offence is entitled for ...

inovators Infotech Limited Vs. Poonam Sachdeva and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since all the above mentioned appeals are directed against a common order, have common facts and also raise common questions of law for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of all the above mentioned appeals, briefly stated, are that the above named respondents had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the complaints, filed by the respondents, the respondents had impleaded respondent No. 2 (M/s. Amicable Infotech Private Limited) as O.P. No. 1 and the appellant was impleaded as O.P. No. 2. In the above said complaints it was averred by the respondents that allured by advertisement issued by the appellant, the respondents had joined a Diploma Course in the Indian Institute of Medical Transcription (IIMT). It was state...