Delhi Court May 2004 Judgments

Umesh Singh Vs. Chancellor/Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT685

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned batch of writ petitions pertain to a dispute raised by Attendants engaged by Indira Gandhi National Open University on daily wage basis. Petitioners in the captioned petitions state that they have been employed on daily wage basis from the year 1996 and onwards. It may be clarified that some petitioners claim to have been appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1996. Some claim appointment with effect from 1997 and so on till the year 2002. Relying upon certain office notes, petitioners allege that the Administrative Wing of IGNOU commenced a proposal which would reveal that more hands are required than the sanctioned posts in the cadre. Proposals were to the effect that services of daily wage persons be regularised. Petitioners allege that since work is being performed by them for a number of years, mandamus be issued to IGNOU to absorb the petitioners as regular employees.2. As per the stand taken by the University it is engaged in impart...

Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT689

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by the learned Additional District Judge (in short 'ADJ') on 23rd April, 1999 whereby the learned ADJ granted compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits for acquisition of his land situated in village Samaspur Jagir by a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 6.9.1999 delivered in LAC No. 474/1993 titled Pratap Singh and Ors. v. Union of India. The judgment relates to the land of the same village, i.e., Samaspur Jagir, which was acquired by the same notification dated 13.11.1959. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the aforementioned judgment the Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits. This judgment has acquired finality because according to learned Counsel for the respondent/Union of...

Narender Sindhi Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, dated 17.12.2003, passed in Complaint Case No. 76/2003 entitled Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta v. M/s. Sindhi Hira Nand Ghori Wala (Regd.). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the respondent had booked the appellant, who is a Music Band Party, for the marriage of his son to be held on 12.12.2002. The respondent had paid the initial amount of Rs. 1,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 14,000/- was to be paid later on as agreed to between the parties. However, the grievance of the respondent in his complaint filed before the District Forum was that after playing the band at the house of the respondent, the band party was directed to reach the venue of the marriage i.e., Farm House named Invitation Green situated at Bhaktawarpur Road which is at a distance of about 10 kms. from the residence of the respondent. However, the appellant not only reached th...

Flyingman Air Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT417TriDel

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Rs. 30,000/- each was imposed under Section 77 of the Service Tax Act for failure to furnished the prescribed Returns.2. The contention of the appellants is that they were under the bona fide, belief that they are not covered under the definition of Courier.The definition of Courier under the Service Tax Act means "a commercial concern engaged in door to door transport and sensitive documents, goods or articles utilizing the service of a person either directly or indirectly to carry or accompany such documents/goods". Their contention is that they are having their offices in Kishan Ganj in Rajasthan from where they were receiving the articles/goods in their office and same were transported to the other offices from where their customers collected their documents/goods. Therefore, they are not engaged in door to door transportation. In these circumstances, they are under the bona fide belief that they ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goetze India Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT563TriDel

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Flip Trolley/Pin Trolley was allowed as capital goods.3. The contention of the Revenue is that these Trolleys are classified under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are not covered under the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.4. The respondents produced the classification lists filed by the manufacture of the trolleys where these trolleys are classified under TSH 7326.90 and the manufacturer is paying appropriate duty under this heading and the Heading 7326.90 of Tariff is covered under the definition of the capital goods. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed....

Faridkod Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC169

1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the issue raised for consideration is whether the amount received by the appellant towards liquidated damages for non-lifting of the quantity of molasses is addable to the assessable value of the goods.2. The appellant is producing molasses. One of the Distilleries did not lift the allocated quantity of molasses during the financial year 1995-96 as they were to pay a higher rate of Rs. 200 per qtl. On the failure of the buyer to lift the allocated quantity, the appellant had to sell the molasses at a lower price of Rs. 85 per qtl. Thereafter, the appellant received liquidated damages to the extent to Rs. 10,12,000 on account of non-lifting of molasses as mentioned above.3. The Revenue took the view that the above amount is addable to the assessable value of the molasses cleared by the assessee. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority. In view of the above, the assessee has come up in ap...

Som Flavours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC676Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Som Flavours Pvt. Ltd. the issue involved is whether Gutka (Pan Masala) containing tobacco is classifiable under Heading 24.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under Heading 21.06 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. We hard Shri R. Pal Singh, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R., for the Revenue. The issue regarding classification of Pan Masala containing tobacco has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Gahoi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Indore relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kothari Products Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2000 (119) S.T.C. 353. The Appellate Tribunal in Gohoi Foods Pvt. Ltd. has held as under: Revenue's entire case is that before presentation of Budget 2001 pan masala containing tobacco was classifiable under Heading 2106 which is apparent also from Note 3 to Chapter 21. It was only after the...

Parishudh Machines P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT505TriDel

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellants was dismissed.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machines and cleared one machine on payment of duty. Due to some problem regarding the payment of price of the machine. The appellants received the machine back in their factory and D-3 intimation was also filed.Thereafter, the appellants cleared the machine again on payment of duty and filed a claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denying the refund on the ground that appellants are not entitled for the refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules as returned machine is not subject to remade, refined or reconditioned. Before the adjudicating authority the appellants took alternative plea that if they are not entitled for the refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules then they are covered under the provisions of ...

Faxtel System (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC369

1. This appeal at the instance of the Importer challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the application for refund had come up for consideration before this Larger Bench pursuant to reference made by the regular bench under Miscellaneous Order No.128/2003. The question to be considered is whether the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt.Ltd., 2000 (71) ECC 4 (SC): 2000 (40) RLT 131 (SC) which arose in an application under Rule 11 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules (present Section 11B) shall be applied to an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.In Flock India the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the review that in a case where an adjudicating authority has passed on order which is appealable under the statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authorit...

Seema Textiles and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC1

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 6th September, 2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), dismissing the application (I.A. 1/2000) filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants-defendants') to dismiss the O.A. as not maintainable in view of Rule 10 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The respondent-Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 269/1998 against the appellants-defendants for the recovery of Rs. 17,10,744.42 with interest and costs. The respondent-Bank prayed for issuance of the recovery certificate against the appellants-defendants jointly and severally, and also for the sale of the mortgaged property, hypothecated stocks etc.3. The appellants-defendants filed an I.A. 1/2000 before the DRT, as stated above, for dismissal of the O.A. The appellants-defendants urged in that appli...