Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Bank of America N.A. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Mittal and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 3.10.2001 passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. OC/82/99- entitled Rajesh Kumar Mittal v. Bank of America and Ors. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent No. 1 (complainant before the District Forum) had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had a non-resident external account bearing No. 6226 with respondent No. 2 UCO Bank. The respondent No. 1 had remitted US D 7800 for crediting in his above said account, through the appellant/Bank of America. Accordingly the appellant had sent a cheque No. 009667 dated 4.12.1997 for amount Rs. 2,91,096/- to respondent No. 2. However, the same was not accompanied by any covering letter or memo giving details of the remittance or the rate of conversion. The grievance of the respondent No. 1 before the District Forum, therefore,...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Manohar Lal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.2.2001 passed by the learned District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi. By the impugned order the learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent Shri Manohar Lal and directed the appellant-Delhi Vidyut Board to revise the bill of the respondent and also pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for deficiency in service and inconvenience caused and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the O.P. in the complaint case DVB has filed this appeal. 3. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Shri Manohar Lal is the consumer of electric connection No. K3194752 installed at his residence No. 14119, Shora Kothi, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The respondent received a notice of misuse on 14.9.1995 and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 20/- as inspection fee if he ...

Mahinder Singh Vs. Pascos and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The above mentioned two appeals are directed against separate orders of District Forum-A, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, both dated 3.3.1998 passed in Complaint Cases No. 91/98 and 92/98 - entitled Sh. Mahinder Singh v. Pascos and Another, and Sh. Raju v. Pascos and Another, respectively. 2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the above mentioned appeals and are directed against the same respondents, with the consent of the parties, the above mentioned appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of both the above mentioned appeals are that the appellants had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the grievance that the appellants had purchased chassis of new truck through the respondents and had deposited an amount of Rs. 4,84,078/- with the respondents on 12.2.1996 against receipt. T...

Sil Exports Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC273

1. The appellants were a 100% Export-Oriented Undertaking (EOU) engaged in the galvanizing of M.S. Black Pipes falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act Schedule, for which they had the requisite permission from the competent authority under the Ministry of Industry, Government of India. They imported 1194.200 MTs of Hot-Rolled Steel Coils (sub-heading No. 7208.90} and presented a Warehousing Bill of Entry dated 20.12.97 at Mumbai Customs for the purpose of warehousing the goods without payment duty under the EOU Scheme. The goods were accordingly warehoused during the period 8.1.1998 to 18.1.1998. Under an agreement entered into between the appellants and M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd., Indore under Section 59(3) of the Customs Act, the goods were cleared without payment of duty, to M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. under two ex-bond Bills of Entry dated 8.1.1998 and 20.1.1998 filed by the latter claiming exemption under Notification No. 80/95-Cus, dated 31.3.95 under the Duty E...

Danish Export Import Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jcd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC351

1. M/s. Dinesh Export Import had filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 89/02 dated 22.8.02 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Shri M.A. Suhail, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants were granted quantity and value based advance licence; that according to the advance licence, they were required to export material weighing 75.285 MT against the FOB value of Rs. 44,75,800; that the Appellants had only exported material to the extent of 21.371 MT and could not achieve the export target due to slump in the international market; that they are not disputing their duty liability; that however, the Commissioner has worked out the duty liability after applying wrong rate of foreign exchange; that the exchange rate for dollar should have been applied at the rates certified by the Bank of India for the relevant dates. He also emphasised that as far as the value of the export is concerned they have in fact exceeded the limit mentioned in the advance licence.3. Shri V....

Cce Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(113)LC363Tri(Delhi)

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit in respect of kraft paper and nickel catalyst on the ground that these are used in the manufacture of intermediate goods which are further used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared on payment of duty.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the intermediate products are exempted from payment of duty, therefore, the credit in respect of inputs used in the intermediate products is not admissible. The contention of the Revenue is also that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries v. CCE which is relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not accepted by the accepted by the Revenue and appeal has been filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the intermediate products, in which the inputs are used are further used in the man...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89ITD520(Delhi)

1. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The short issue involved in these appeals is whether the interest received by the assessee in respect of various investments and deposits made by it is chargeable to tax under the provisions of Interest-tax Act, 1974 (in short Act).2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee, which is a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India, is engaged in the business of general insurance. It is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938. The assessee is required to invest its funds only in the approved investments specified in Section 27B of this Act.During the years under consideration, the assessee received interest chargeable on various investments and deposits and filed its return of interest chargeable to tax under the Act declaring interest chargeable to tax at Rs. 16,42,34,600, Rs. 19,99,50,713 and Rs. 22,90,13,766 for asst. yrs. 1...

L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC224

1. These appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-II dated 22.5.2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Adjudicating authority had confirmed demand of service tax from the appellant on the ground that they had availed services of goods transport operators for transportation of raw material, packing materials. Capital goods and finished goods etc. during 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 and had not paid service tax @5% as required under chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended subsequently.2. It is admitted that all the appellants in the course of their business had utilized services of goods transport operators. As per provisions of Finance Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder service provider was to collect and pay service tax. Service tax was liable to be paid on the services rendered by Clearing and Forwarding Agent and Goods Transport Operator with effect from 16.7.97 ...

Kashi Prasad Soni Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC41

1. The applicants filed Misc. application No. C/Misc. 230/2003 for producing the copies of additional documents. The Applicants wants to produce the copy of the application of the appellants, sent to the Commissioner of Customs, Copy of Panchnama. Copy of Statements, copy of show cause notice. As these documents are already part of the adjudicating order, therefore, the application is allowed.2. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.5.1992 one Shri Rajendra Soni was apprehended with Indian currency of Rs. 21,23,050.00. Shri Rajendra Soni in his statement disclosed that the currency is the sale proceed of smuggled gold. The Currency was taken into possession. Thereafter, the statement of Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma was recorded and he in his statement stated that Shri Rajendra Soni and one Shri Ahmed Bhai...

Devidayal Aluminium Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC199

1. The issue involved in these Appeals, filed by M/s. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others is whether the processes undertaken by them amount to manufacture.2. Shri M. Chandrashekaran, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the Appellants manufacture pressure cookers, kitchen utensils, aluminium circles, aluminium strips, etc.; that a show cause notice dated 16.4.99 was issued to the Appellants alleging that they were maintaining various sets of invoices, viz., "A" "C" "I" and "J" Series invoices whereunder Pressure Cookers, brass coils/strips, CRSS coils/strips/sheets and products after cutting/slitting/breaking into small sizes were cleared respectively on payment of duty; "M-Series Invoices for (a) clearing CRSS Products after hardening and reducing thickness without payment of duty, (b) selling brass coils/strips manufactured out of scrap on labour basis. (c) clearing bought out aluminium coils after reducing of thickness and annealing and (d) clearing brass scrap, ...