Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Pushpa Builders Ltd. Vs. S.P. Mohan

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Aforesaid two appeals arising from the impugned order dated 24.8.1995 shall be disposed of by this common order. 2. Limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order is that while allowing the claim of the complainant the District Forum has not awarded the interest on the amount, which was retained by the respondent M/s. Pushpa Builders unauthorisedly. The facts giving rise to the appeals are that the appellant booked a residential apartment on 4.6.1989 with the respondent builders at Pushpa Vaishali Apartments at Vaishali in District Ghaziabad U.P. by making initial payment of Rs. 2,000/-. On 4.5.1989 balance of 10% amounting to Rs. 21,750/- was paid and the appellant was allotted a space No. B-2, J Block at the 5th Floor. However, the space allotted was changed to B-5, on the 5th Floor in E-Block on payment of Rs. 25,000/- by the appellant on 24.10.1989. By way of making regular payments of instalments the appellant made total payment of Rs. 2,0...

Dixon Utlities and Exports Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(118)LC184Tri(Delhi)

2. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has denied them the credit of Rs. 2,35,008/- on the ground that the inputs which were sent to the job worker were received back after expiry of 180 days. The delay in receipt of the goods after expiry of 180 days is only for 5 to 27 days.The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that Rule 57F(11) specially provides the action to be taken in case inputs or partially processed inputs removed under Rule 57F(4) are not received back in the factory of manufacturer of the final product in the specified period.3. Shri Ravi Raghvan, Counsel for the appellants pleaded that the issue involved in this case has already been settled by the following decisions of the Tribunal:CCE, Pondicherry v. Tambraparani Containers (P) Ltd. 2004 (116) ECR 506 (Tri.-Chennai).He referred to para (e) of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Godrej and Boyee Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that: ...

Malibu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashutosh Ahluwalia

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Short question arising for determination in this appeal directed against impugned order dated 7.9.1982 passed by the District Forum is whether the appellant was entitled to cancel the allotment of a plot allotted to the respondent on the ground that the respondent declined to pay the preferential location charges. Vide impugned order the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent as compensation for having cancelled the allotment of a plot on non-payment of preferential location charges and also Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2.Perusal of the impugned order shows that there was no such clause in the allotment letter or in the advertisement for sale of the plots by the appellant company that if the respondent is interested in preferential location he has to shell out extra charges. We find no infirmity with the observations of the District Forum that the appellant was not entitled to claim any preferential location charges from the re...

V.B. Aggarwal Vs. Kumar Abhijeet

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant was operating as franchisee of M/s. Reliant Informatics for professional teaching. The respondent registered himself on 29.12.1999 with the appellant for E-Commerce (full course) for duration of 5 months and started attending the class from January, 2000. The respondent paid Rs. 23,600/- as fees for the course in five instalments besides Rs. 500/- as registration fees and Rs. 1,000/- as prospectus fees. The last instalment of Rs. 5,000/- as paid by the respondent on 7.7.2000. Admittedly the course was to end on 7.7.2000 but the appellant could not provide the facility to conclude the course within the stipulated period. However, the respondent went to the appellant institute on 8.12.2000 but found that has been closed without any prior information to him. However, the Guard standing at the institute informed the respondent that the same has been shifted to Mayapuri. When he went to Mayapuri he was informed that the appellant is no more franchise...

Hukum Chand Jute and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT35TriDel

1. Shri U.S. Bhatt, learned Advocate, submitted that a duty of Rs. 4,19,477/- has been demanded from the Applicants M/s. Hukumchand Jute & Industries Ltd. on the ground that they had dismantled the old machine, etc. and had undertaken the process of cutting, sizing and bending, etc. which amounts to manufacture. He submitted that no duty is payable on old and used machinery which are dismantled and sold as scrap; that they have not availed of any Modvat credit on the machine. We also heard Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R.2. After considering the submissions of both the sides we observe that the Applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty. Accordingly we stay the recovery of the duty & penalty during the pendency of the appeal which is posted for regular hearing on 25th January, 2005....

Shivalik Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT53TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original who confirmed the duty demand against the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of man-made fabrics, cotton fabrics etc. Being an independent textile processor having two hot air stenters of five chambers each installed in their factory, they had been discharging the duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme in terms of Section 3A of the Act. The Compounded Levy Scheme was, however, withdrawn w.e.f. 1-3-2001 and appellants started paying the duty on ad valorem basis. During the operation of the scheme, they, however, on 7-2-2001, requested the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise for sealing one of their stenters and the same was sealed on 15-2-2001. Thereafter, they wanted abatement of duty from 15-2-2001 till the re-opening of the stenter on 28-2-2001 but the same had been denied on the groun...

Shivagrico Implements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT573TriDel

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has enhanced the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) against the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the duty had already been paid along with the interest, the penalty equal to the amount of duty had been wrongly imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has stated that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was not reasonable and that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly enhanced the same.4.2 The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants failed to pay full duty during the period April, 1999 to September, 1999 as determined under Section 3A read with Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules. The total duty not paid by them was worked out to Rs. 5,23,248/- and they were served with a show cause notice for paying the same. We find that they paid this duty amount along with interest. The adjudicating aut...

Sylvania Laxman Ltd. and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC244

1. Respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal, namely, Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank, State Bank of Patiala, Standard Chartered Bank, ICICI Bank (formely Bank of Madura Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 218/97 against the appellants herein (who are defendants 1 to 4 in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants'). The 6th respondent herein-IFCI was the 5th defendant in the O.A. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The claim in the O.A. is for the recovery of Rs. 10,06,82,207.69 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 28.9.2001 declined the request of the appellants-defendants to allow them to file the written statement, and also directed that the written statement, which has been filed without the permission and after the closing of the right of the appellants-defendants to file the written statement, be taken off the record. Aggrieve...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Shyam Filament

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT103TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue against impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the duty liability of the respondents in respect of the waste and scrap arising out the excisable goods, cleared by them without payment of duty.2. The ld. JDR has contended that waste and scrap had arisen from the capital goods on which the credit was availed by the respondents, the same could be removed only on payment of duty in terms of Rule 57S(2)(C). On the other hand, the ld. Counsel has contended that the issue already stands covered in favour of the respondents by the Tribunal's judgment in CCE, Jaipur v. J.K. Industries Ltd. reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 332.3. We have gone through the record. We find that the provisions Rule 57S(2)(C) have no application at all to the present case, as the said provisions are attracted only when the capital goods had been disposed of as scrap after availing Modvat credit. But in the case in hand, the scrap and waste cleared by the...

Cce Vs. Shaktiman Cement Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC1034Tri(Delhi)

1. The present appeal of the Revenue is directed against the following order of the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to rate of duty applicable on cement cleared by the respondent. 5. I have gone through the memorandum of appeal alongwith Hon'ble Tribunal remand order dated 17.9.1998. The basic issue in this case pertains to whether the respondents can avail benefits of Notification No. 175/86-CE 1/93-CE with Notification No. 24/91-CE dated 25.7.1991, as amended. Notification No. 24/91-CE dated 25.7.1991, as amended, provided concessional rate of duty to Portland cement manufactured in a factory as detailed in the table to the said Notification. Second proviso to the said Notification i.e. Clause (b) provided interalia, that nothing contained in that notification shall be applicable to such cement in respect of which a manufacturer avails of the exemption contained in the Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.4.1986 as amended. The Hon'bJe Tribunal in the final order No. 599/99-C dated...