Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

V.N. Dhoot Vs. Balbir Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 8.3.2000 whereby it has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,820/- on account of interest @ 18% for delayed redemption of bonds purchased by the respondent from the appellant is that there was no delay on their part in redeeming the bonds. 2. Admittedly the respondent was holding 200 bonds of Rs. 40/- each of the appellant company which were to be matured on 20.2.1998 and that the rate of redemption was Rs. 100/- per bond but these were redeemed in August, 1998. Though the respondent claims to have the bonds to the appellant by registered post on 23.1.1998 but the Counsel for the appellant contends that no such bonds were ever received by the appellant and a communication was sent to the respondent in May, 1998 itself seeking option of consent for encashment of the bonds. 3.The plea raised by the appellant appears to be a feeble attempt to escape its liability for delayed payment. Had the bonds no...

Ram Sakal Tiwari Vs. Exim Corporation and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 23.4.2003 the application of the appellant for restoration of the complaint was dismissed in default on 14.5.2001 on account of appellants failure to explain the delay for the period between 3rd of September, 2001 to 8.11.2001. The appellant had to stay at Muzaffarpur from 15.2.2001 to 26.5.2001 for appearing in the examination of BHMS and when he returned to Delhi he was down with typhoid fever from 28.5.2001 to 3.9.2001. Merely because he did not mention in the application as to the delay in moving the application from 3.9.2001 to 8.11.2001 while filing an application before the District Forum for restoration of the complaint, does not mean that the delay was not bona fide. It is pertinent to mention that O.Ps. did not respond despite service of the notice of the application. 2. District Forum should have been considerate of the fact that the proceedings before the District Forum initiated by a consumer are not on the same parity a...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijendra Kumar Bhatia

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 14.12.2000 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the insured value of the vehicle purchased by the respondent with 15% interest on account of total loss, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Admittedly the Maruti car in question was purchased on 11.3.1994 from M/s. Rohtas Motors, Ghaziabad and brought to Delhi by the respondent who got it insured for Rs. 3,65,000/- from the appellant on 18/21.3.1994. Unfortunately after one week the vehicle in question was stolen and a claim was preferred by the respondent for the said amount. However, the said claim was repudiated for the reasons that the respondent had obtained the insurance of the vehicle by suppression of facts and the premium amount was refunded to him for doubtful bona fides as after investigation by a leading detective agency it was revealed that the vehicle in question was not physically inspected by the employee of the company, who was deputed for ...

Central Board of Trustees Vs. R.C. Bharadwaj

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is Central Provident Fund Commissioner and has statutory obligation in protecting the interests of the workers and employees and take punitive action against the employers who do not fulfil their obligation of refunding the accumulated provident fund of their employees on their retirement. For indifferent, callous and cavalier attitude firstly of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and then of the appellant as the respondent who retired as typewriter mechanic has suffered so much that he is on the brink of complete ruination as due to penury caused by the appellant-respondent was not able to marry off his daughters and lost his only son. 2. Vide impugned order dated 28.1.2003 the appellant was held to be jointly and severally liable along with employer of the respondent and was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,08,901.32 or such other higher amount accumulated towards the provident fund contributed by the respondent along with interest @ 9% till the date of pay...

Natural Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT326TriDel

1. Though the case is posted today for consideration of stay, upon hearing both sides and perusal of the records. I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, after granting the waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit, I proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The case involves the denial of Modvat credit of over Rs. 2 lakhs to the appellant. This is the duty paid by them on crude Iodine which is used in the production of Iodine of I.P. standard. The appellant was paying duty on Iodine of I.P. standard. Notwithstanding this, the impugned order has held that the process of converting crude Iodine of I.P. standard does not amount to manufacture and therefore, crude Iodine cannot be treated as input on which credit is available.3. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the Revenue cannot be hard to argue both ways - (i) to collect duty on Iodine of I.P.standard as if it was a manufactured product, and (ii) then to deny the credit on the input used in its p...

Talbros Automotive Components Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT383TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of cylinder head gaskets. They cleared 4800 cylinder heads to M/s. Tata Engineering and Loco Ltd., (TELCO), Pune under 12 invoices dated 29-9-2000 to 18-10-2000. The buyer rejected the goods. Therefore, they were brought back to the factory and D-3 declaration was filed on 23-1-2001. That declaration refers to Rule 173L. The receipt of the consignment was also verified by the Central Excise Officer. Subsequently, the appellant sought refund of duty of Rs. 97,968/- originally paid, in respect of those goods under Rule 173L. A show-cause notice was issued by the Central Excise alleging that refund under Rule 173L is permissible only in respect of the goods brought back to the factory for being remade, refined, reconditioned or to be subjected to any such process in the factory. They were also asked to furnish details about the processes carried out. The appellant replied to the Show-cause Notice saying that the goods were subjected to the processes of ...

E.i. Du Pont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC804

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. E.I. Du Pont India Pvt. Ltd., the issue relates to the determination of assessable value of the pesticides manufactured by them.2. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants clear the entire production to consignment stock agent and the goods are sold to various customers from the premises of consignment stock agent; that the assessable value of the goods has been determined on the basis of sale prices prevailing on dates subsequent to the date of removal of goods from the factory under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The learned Advocate submitted that in Board's Circular F. No.354/81/2000-TRU, dated 30-6-2000, it has been clarified that when the goods are not sold at the factory gate and they are transferred to depots or consignment agents, the assessable value shall be the value at which "the greatest aggregate quantity of goods from the depots, etc. are sold at ...

Kabra Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT245TriDel

1. In these appeals which have been filed against the common order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the classification of the product "Ethyl Chloride IP-100 ml and Anaesthetic Ether IP-500 ml" and the availability of the Modvat credit to the appellants on the inputs used in the manufacture of the product.2. We have heard both sides. From the record, it is evident that the appellants filed a declaration in respect of both these products under Chapter 29 (sub-heading 2903.90 and 2909.00 respectively). They cleared the goods on payment of appropriate duty as per law.3. The Revenue had propounded the classification under Chapter 30 wherein NIL rate of duty is provided. We find that the Asstt.Commissioner while adjudicating the Show Cause Notice sought the expert's opinion of Deputy Director, Food & Drugs Administration, Indore, who opined in clear terms that the product manufactured by the appellants are bulk drugs classifiable under Chapter 29. He, by relying upon that opinion accepte...

Bhoop Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ351CAT

1. Applicant assails a major penalty of forfeiture of one year's permanent service entailing reduction in pay inflicted vide order dated 30.8.2003 as well as appellate order dated 16.1.2004, upholding the punishment.2. Applicant while working as Head Constable Driver and attached on a duty in PCR Van on 6.9.2002 while it was drizzling due to sudden flash of on coming vehicle, PCR Van collided with the road divider, resulting in damage to the vehicle and injuries to the staff.3. An inspection was carried out by the ACP (Motor Transport Section), where a report was submitted on 11.9.2002 observing that the damage caused to the vehicle is due to rash and negligent driving of applicant.4. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) having jurisdiction issued a show cause notice to applicant on 11.9.2002 proposing a minor penalty of censure. This has been represented to by applicant.5. Videan order dated 26.12.2002 the Deputy Commissioner of Police ordered a regular disciplinary enquiry (DE) against a...

Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Vice-chairman Vs. BhasIn Asso ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT484; (2005)139PLR40

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that even if the affidavit of the earlier panel lawyer Ms. Sangeeta Bharti is taken into consideration that there was delay in handing over the file after she resigned from the panel, the appellant before us could not explain non-appearance from March, 2000 till April, 2002. The Explanationn as set out in the application before the learned Single Judge in para 2 of the application was that matter was conducted by panel lawyer and the file of the matter was sent to her on 17.3.1999. No intimation regarding the progress was sent by her to the Department and the panel lawyer resigned from the panel in March, 2000. If the panel lawyer has resigned in the year 2000 and the department while engaging the counsel maintains a register, why efforts were not made about the f...