Delhi Court March 2004 Judgments

B.B. Sharma Vs. Mrs. Sushma Bharti

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. In all 31 revision petitions, filed by Shri B.B. Sharma, common question of law and fact is involved and the petitioner in all the cases is the same. Hence all the revision petitions mentioned above are being disposed of by this single order. 2. The facts of the cases in brief are that the petitioner was the director of M/s. Hoftland Securities Ltd. and the respondents had made various deposits with the company. However, the petitioner failed to refund the principal amount deposited by the respondents along with interest. Hence the respondents filed separate complaints before the District Forum and the District Forum vide separate orders directed the petitioner to make the payment of the principal amount, as well as interest besides costs and compensation for mental tension. The petitioner, however, did not comply with the order of the District Forum. Hence the respondents moved application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for initiating ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mohan Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.7.1997 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 374/1996-entitled Sh. P.K. Banerjee v. Delhi Development Authority. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that Sh. Mohan Singh was the original allottee of Flat No. 20-D, Pocket-A, Mayur Vihar, Phase II, Delhi and Sh. P.K. Banerjee/respondent purchased the said flat from Sh. Mohan Singh, on power of attorney basis. The flat in question was allotted on hire purchase basis and the appellant had floated a hire purchase penalty relief scheme of 1995 whereby a package deal in the form of incentive was afforded to the allottees who cleared their instalments along with interest upto date. Under the said scheme, the relief in penalty worked out to around 66% and the said scheme was valid to the allottees making the payment during the period 1.8.1995 to 31.1.1996. The respondent received a defaul...

Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC277

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Kuber Tobacco Products P. Ltd., the issue involved is whether Gutka/Pan Masala manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 21.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Revenue or under Heading 24.04 of the Tariff under which they were discharging the duty liability.2. Shri M. Chandrashekharan, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that prior to 6.11.2000 they were classifying the Pan Masala containing Tobacco (Gutka) under Heading 21.06; that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kothari Products LTD. vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh - (2000) STC 533 holding that Gutka is a tobacco preparation and would merit classification under Sub-heading 2404.40, they were directed by the Revenue to file a fresh declaration classifying the Gutka under Sub-2404.40 of the Tariff; that in compliance of the said direction of the Department they classified Gutka under Sub-heading 2404.40 w.e.f.6.11.2000. He, further, submitted ...

Pacl India Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC332

2. Appellants filed this appeal challenging the imposition of duty of Rs. 1,50,000.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Magnetic Mattresses and filed a declaration for availing the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification. On verification, it was found that appellants were manufacturing the goods with the Brand name belonging to some other manufacturer. The benefit of Small Scale Exemption was denied to the appellants and duty was demanded in respect of goods cleared by availing the benefit of exemption notification. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 6,84,681. On appeal filed by the appellants the amount of penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,50,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. The contention of the appellant is that duty was deposited before issuance of the show cause notice. Therefore, they are not liable to any penal action. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S...

Photodeal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC281

1. Appellants one and two, imported four consignments of cameras during 1996-97 at Chennai from Hong Kong. The goods were cleared after payment of customs duty. Subsequently, on 14th October 99, the Additional Director General, DRI, Chennai issued a Show-cause Notice alleging that the values of the cameras had been under-invoiced and misdeclared in customs documents and there was customs duty evasion. Details of alleged undervaluation and duty evasion are available in the Table reproduced below : 2. The abovementioned notice culminated in the passing of Order-in-Original No. 280/03, dated 11-3-2003 of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The Commissioner upheld the charges and demanded the short-levied duty of about Rs. 29 lakhs under Section 28 of the Customs Act, Commissioner also confiscated the goods, with a fine of Rs. 13 lakhs. Penalties were also imposed on the various appellants. The present appeals are directed against those orders. The Commissioner's finding of under-valuat...

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. M.P. Joseph

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT120

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In the present case the Revisionist has assailed the Order dated 23.1.2004 whereby its application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. The Order is a detailed one running into eight pages. It is obvious to me that considerable amount of time and attention has been expended by the Trial Court in disposing of the application, which could have been better utilised in deciding the suit itself. This waste of time is further compounded by the filing of the present Revision petition. It is this recurring onslaught of litigation that has sought to be plugged by amendments to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that if the order had been decided in favor of the Petitioner the effect would have been that the suit itself could have been disposed of. The fact remains that the Petitioner has adequate remedy and opportunity to resist the suit. Reliance has also been placed on the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Sup...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Alcatel India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT427TriDel

1. The respondent is a manufacture of telecom equipment. The basic issue raised in these appeals of the Revenue is whether freight and insurance should form part of the assessable value of the equipment.Commissioner (Appeals) held that the sale of the goods had taken place prior to their transport and therefore, place of removal cannot be taken as the buyer's premises so as to include freight and insurance in the assessable value. While reaching that decision, he was guided by the decision ot the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Escorts JCB Ltd. v.C.C.E., Delhi-11 2. We have perused the record and heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. A perusal of the sale invoices produced by the respondent (No, 1040 for e.g.) clearly shows that the goods had been sold (DE OCB Installation, Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad; Hyderabad in the case of No. 1040) before their sales. The cost of the machine and transport charges are also separately shown. Such invoicing makes it clear that the go...

Cce Vs. Pasupati Haryana Woollens Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC233

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 120/03 dated 3.4.2003, by which the Commissioner (Appeals), has allowed the Modvat Credit to M/s. Pasupati Haryana Woollens Ltd. 2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents manufacture yarn and avail Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the respondents had taken Modvat Credit on the strength of 4 gate passes dated 29.7.93, 4.9.93, 14.9.93 and 13.12.93; that these gate passes were endorsed for Tops, though originally consigned for Tows; that, thus, a conversion from Tow to Tops has taken place; that the consigner was M/s. Indian Organic Chemical Ltd., Madras and the goods were received after conversion of Tows to Tops by M/s.Wellman Hindustan Ltd.; that Tows and Tops are different commodities and since the change had taken place after conversion of Tows to Tops, the endorsement on gate passes, issued in such a situation, cannot be treated as valid duty-paying...

Pipal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT203TriDel

1. The appeal was filed on 6-6-2003 against the Commissioner's order dated 27-10-97. In the present application for condonation of delay (if any) of the appeal, the appellant submits that he had come to know about the Commissioner's order from the officers of Customs who met him for recovery of penalty amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on the strength of the said order. The applicant submits that a photocopy of the Commissioner's order was received by him for the first time on 10-3-2003 upon specific application made in this behalf. It is further submitted that the appeal is not time barred. On an earlier occasion, this Bench had directed the DR to ascertain the date of service (if any) of a certified copy of the Commissioner's order on the applicant.2. Today the DR has responded by saying that the receipt of service of the adjudication order is not readily available in the concerned Customs Commissionerate. This submission is based on a letter dated 23-12-2003 of the Additional Commissioner of C...

Krupa Pharmaceuticals and Gopal Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC109

1. Appellant Gopal Das Visram & Co. is a manufacturer of medicine. It manufactured some medicines for M/s. Glenmark Pharma Ltd. In some cases, order was directly placed by M/s. Glenmark Pharma Ltd. in the remaining cases through Krupa Pharmaceuticals. Excise duty was discharged on the goods so manufactured against job orders by treating sale prices to M/s. Glenmark Pharma Ltd. as assessable values, whether that was the sale price of the appellant manufacturer himself or Krupa Pharmaceuticals through whom the order was placed on the appellant. The impugned order proceeds to demand differential duty based on a finding that the assessable (sic, assessable value) should be the price at which the buyer (Glenmark Pharma Ltd.) sold the goods.2. Appellant's contention is that the sale price of the buyer has no relevance for determination of the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the party, unless special circumstances mentioned in the valuation provision is attracted. That prov...