Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Neelam Sehgal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. It is unfortunate that for the indifferent and mischievous attitude of the officials of the appellant posted in the department dealing with allotment of the flats and handing over of possession of flats consumers are suffering immensely as this Commission has come across many such cases which manifestly project intentional harassment of the consumers on one excuse or the other. Instead of helping the consumer, the appellant authority has become a source of a harassment. The appellant authority should keep in mind that it is constituted for the welfare of the people and in spite of protecting their interests they tend to become a precursor and persecutor. 2. In the instant case, the appellant has filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 2.12.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 881/2001-entitled Smt. Neelam Sehgal v. Delhi Development Authority, directing the appellant to refund the booking ...

Ms. Angammai Achi Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Pursuant to this appeal the appellant has challenged adjudication order No. DD/MAS/36/2003(VS) dated 23-4-2003 passed by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000 against the appellant for contravention of provisions of section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for the reason that the appellant acknowledged debt of Rs. 1,50,000 in favour of one George Joseph, resident of Saudi Arabia after receiving from him a cheque to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000. The appellant has already made pre-deposit of the amount of penalty of Rs. 15,000 with the respondent. Presently this appeal is heard on merits for final disposal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Mahendra Singh argued that there is no evidence worth the name on which the impugned order can be passed and it is a product of imagination and surmises. The impugned order states that receipt of a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000 from Shri George Joseph of Saudi Arabia in the name of the appella...

iti Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT321TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,70,000/-. There is also equal amount of penalty on the appellant.2. The submission made is that credit of Rs. 8,511/- has been denied on the ground that the input in question was used in the R&D department of the assessee. The learned Commissioner has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. English Electric Co. -1997 (93) E.L.T. 293 in support of this decision. However, the appellant has pointed out that the facts of the case are different and that Tribunal's order has no application to the asscssee's case. It is being pointed out that the inputs in question were not consumed in the R&D wing. They were only tested by R&D for quality and returned to production. Testing of input is a standard practice in manufacture.That the testing takes place in the R&D wing makes no difference. The inputs admittedly were used in production only and not in R&D department. Denial of credit w...

Shree Ganesh International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT171TriDel

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Shree Ganesh International against two separate Orders-in-Originals, the common issues involved are whether the polyester fabrics imported by them is classifiable under sub-heading 5407 61 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as declared by them on Bills of Entry or under sub-heading 5407 69 00 and whether the importers are eligible to get the goods cleared without payment of duty against Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC).2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants imported two consignments of Polyester Fabrics from M/s. Shaoxing Weifing Weaving Printing & Dyeing Co. Ltd. and M/s. Shaoxing Tialong Import & Export Ltd., China respectively; that they had ordered for import of polyester fabrics and in the test Certificates it was clearly mentioned that the impugned goods were non-texturised fabrics; that the Commissioner of Customs, under both the impugned Orders has classified the impugned good...

Cc and Ce Vs. Bajaj Temo Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC414Tri(Delhi)

1. These are three appeals filed by Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 673-675/2003 dated 22.12.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat Credit (except Rs. 464.06 and Rs 4614.07) to M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. 2. In respect of Appeal Nos. E/3548 and 3549/04, the Revenue has also filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Shri O.P. Arora, learned S.D.R., mentioned that the Revenue has initialy filed one common Appeal No. E/1546/04-B within the time specified in Section 35B of the Central Excise Act; that the two supplementary appeals have been filed as the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of three appeals by the impugned Order. After hearing Sh. S.A. Gundecha, Director of Respondent Company, we condone the delay in filing these two appeals as the main appeal had been filed within the time limit specified in Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.3. The learned S.D.R. mentioned that the Respondents manufacture motor vehicles and ava...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Raj Leather Cloth Industries (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT332TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by granting the benefit of Notification No. 14/92, dated 1-3-1992 in respect of the impugned goods.2. The contention of the Revenue is that initially three show cause notices were issued to the respondents. One show cause notice was regarding classification of the scrap of polyurethane/parings and regarding admissibility of benefit of Notification No. 14/92 and the other show cause notices were issued for consequential demand. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 46/94 to 48/94, dated 13-8-1994 confirmed the demand after denying the benefit of Notification No. 14/92. The respondents filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 710, dated 27-9-1994 denied the benefit of notification and remanded the matter for quantification of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, the respondents fi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Saboo Cylinders (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT40TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether the refund of Central Excise duty is payable by M/s. Saboo Cylinders (P) Ltd. 2. Shri D N Choudhary, Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the respondents manufacture LPG Cylinders; that they had cleared the cylinders to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. at the contractual price of Rs.535 and paid duty at the tariff rate of 16%; that they were required to pay concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/02-C E dated 1.3.02; that the Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original No.11/03 dated 21.10.2003 denied the refund of duty on the ground that benefit of Notification No.9/02 was not available to the respondents as they had not exercised the option in writing for availing the benefit of Notification; that, however, on Appeal filed by the respondents, Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has allowed the refund claim to the respondents holding that substantial benefit can not be disallowed ...

Cce Vs. Alcobex Metals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC964Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the price of excisable goods charged by M/s. Alcobex Metals Ltd., is to be treated as cum-duty price for the purpose of levying the Central Excise duty.2. We heard Sh. R.C. Sankhla, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue and Shr.B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate for the Respondents. The Respondents manufacture brass and copper articles and during the process of manufacture, industrial dust also comes into existence; they had cleared the said industrial dust without payment of duty. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to them for demand of Central Excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise, under the impugned Order, has held that the industrial dust is classifiable under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff and duty is payable by the Respondents. He, however, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. , has treated the price as cum-duty price and confirmed t...

Hewlett Packard India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Hewlett Packard India Pvt. Ltd. relates to classification of Note book Computer loaded with software.2. Shri V Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants, engaged in trading of computers, imported computer Notebook loaded with the operating software; that a "Computer loaded with the operating software invariable accompanies the Notebook; that the CD is used to reload the software in case of a crash of the computer or in case the software gets corrupted; that in Bill of Entry dated 1.9.2003, they indicated the configuration of the Notebook and declared the assessable value as US $ 775.02 under sub-Heading 84713010 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that since Microsoft disc, they separately indicated the software and declared its assessable value as US $ 146. He, further, mentioned that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 7/2003 dated 23.10.2003, classified the Notebook alongwith t...

Cce Vs. Kanohar Electricals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC675Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the price of excisable goods charged by M/s. Kanohar Electricals (P) Ltd., is to be treated as cum-duty price for the purpose of levying the Central Excise duty.2. We heard Shri S.M. Tata, learned SDR for the Revenue and Shri Pravin Sharma, learned Advocate for the Respondents, M/s. Kanohar electricals.3. The Respondents are manufacturing electrical transformers. A show cause notice was issued to them for demanding the duty on transformer oil used in the repair of transformers. The Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has treated the value as cum-duty value in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCB v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. . It has been contended by the Revenue that deduction of duty payable on the goods from the wholesale price is not permissible because no duty has actually been paid by the Respondents.The Revenue has placed reliance in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Ex...