Delhi Court July 2004 Judgments

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radha and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal has been preferred by bottlers M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., against order dated 29.12.2000, passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagari, Delhi whereby it was held jointly and severally responsible for deficiency in service in its capacity as the bottler of the drink named Coca Cola inasmuch as that spurious or drink with bad odour was supplied to the respondent through its distributor. Before the learned District Forum, the appellant was proceeded ex parte and now has chosen to file the appeal against the impugned order which has directly effected it. Respondent/complainant, is small time vendor engaged in the sale of tea, coffee in the campus of Bunkar Vihar Complex. 2. Put briefly facts are that the respondent/complainant purchased one carat of cold drink from M/s. Salman Cold Drinks, respondent No. 1 on 28.5.1999 for the value of Rs. 192/- vide receipt No. 655. One of the customers who purchased the drink from the complainant/resp...

iqbal Chand Arora Vs. Unit Trust of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant had invested a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the respondent-UTI. The plan was stated to be in response to the persistent demand from investors particularly retired persons for either Monthly Income or Cumulative option for a period of five years with the option of repurchases on the basis of NAV (Net Asset Value) after one year. As per the scheme, at least 80% of the funds under the plan were to be invested in fixed income securities while 20% was to be invested in equities and equity related documents. After one year he was paid Rs. 1,83,000/- against the invested amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the basis of prevailing NAV. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking recovery of the remaining amount of Rs. 17,000/- with interest. The claim of the appellant did not find favour with the District Forum solely for the reason that risk factor is provided in the application form itself and, therefore, it was dut...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Feedback Ventures

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR165

2. Heard ld. DR. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the revenue is that the respondent deposited the Service Tax on due date through cheque which was credited in Govt. account on a later date. Therefore, the date on which the amount was credited in the Govt. account is the date of the payment of service tax and not the date on which the cheque was presented. I find that this issue is already covered in the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I v. Genus Overseas Electronics Ltd. the Tribunal held that the date of presentation of cheque is the date of payment of Service Tax. In this case the cheque presented on due date was not dishonoured by the Bank. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed....

Cce Vs. Usha India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC569

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent also filed Cross Objection seeking reduction in redemption fine.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.9.2000, the officers of Revenue Deptt. intercepted two vehicles and 38 boxes of transistors valued at Rs. 5,39,610 were recovered. Shri Rajesh Nakra produced same invoice showing the clearance of these transistors and on verification it was found that invoice contained to some other unit at Bhagirath Place. As the goods were cleared without payment of duty, therefore, the goods were seized. The jurisdictional authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on redemption fine of Rs. 1,35,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 each on respondents. A penalty of Rs. 25,000 was also imposed on Shri Rajesh Nakra. An appeal filed by the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.2. Contention of the Revenue is that as ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Doon Valley Distillers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT171TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of notice.2. Heard ld. DR. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in- appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute in this case is in respect of the due date for the payment of interest. The Revenue was claiming interest from the date when the service tax was due. The Service Tax on service of 'GTO' was levied w.e.f. 16-11-97 and this levy was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365. Thereafter the Parliament passed on revalidation Act for levy of the Service Tax and as per the revalidation Act, the tax is to be paid within 30 days of receiving of the assent of the President of India. The assent was given by the President of India as 12-6-2000. In this situation, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that tax is to be deposited within 30 days from the assent given by the President of India and therefore, the interest is levi...

Vasant Spinners Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC625

1. M/s. Vasant Spinners have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 443/2003 dated 27.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. We heard Shir J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture cotton yarn; that single yarn is captively converted into multiple fold/cone/cross reel/plain reel yarn before clearance from the factory; that the yarn is sold at the factory gate to the dealers, from depots and through the consignment agents; that on their visit on 30.6.98, Central Excise officers found single and multifold cone yarn valued at Rs. 4,71,100, which was not entered in the R.G. I register; that the officers also found another lot of single and multifold yarn valued at Rs. 1,22,761 unaccounted in R.G. I register; that these yarn were seized by the officers; that on scrutiny of the documents, the officers pointed out that they had be...

Euro CotspIn Ltd., Shri Rajeev Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC437

1. These are 5 applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalties as under:------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Name of applicant Duty Penalty-----------------------------------------------------------------------------5. Shri J.C. Khandelwal - 5,00,000----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted after the officers visited the factory premises of the applicants on 24.10.2000 a show cause notice dated 1,8.2.2002 was issued for demanding duty for the period of 1.11.97 to 31.3.2001; that all the documents relied upon in the show cause notice including Annexure 'C' & 'D' had not been received by them; that they had requested the department for supply of those documents but the same have not been received by them; that after receipt of the show cause notice fire broke out in their factory; that it was intimated to the department. He, furt...

Cce Vs. Everest Rolling Mills (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC417

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of notice. The case was adjourned twice for arguments and the respondents were unpresented.2. Heard Ld. DR. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and penalty in respect of the goods found in excess as compare to the recorded balance.3. Brief facts of the case are the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Bars and M.S. Plates. On 29.8.2001 the Officers of Revenue visited the factory premises of the unit and conducted physical verification. It was found that there was an excess stock of M.S. Bars weighting 4.236 m.t. The goods were seized and after issue of SCN, the goods found in excess were ordered to be confiscated and the same are released from payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12,000. A penalty of Rs. 25,000 was also imposed on the appellant.4. On appeal filed by the appellant, C...

Shiv Naresh Sports (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)1SOT66(Delhi)

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 27-1-2004 of CIT (A), New Delhi relating to assessment year 2002-03. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in and by which the order of the assessing officer imposing penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act has been confirmed by the CIT (A).The facts and circumstances under which the penalty came to be imposed by the assessing officer are as follows. The assessee is a company which is engaged in the manufacture of sports goods and garments.During the previous year, i.e., on 4-8-2002 there was a survey conducted under section 133A of the Act. In the course of survey, excess stock worth Rs. 1.50 crores were found. In the statement recorded at the time of survey, the assessee offered to declare the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1.5 crores as unexplained investment for the financial year 2001-02. The assessee also undertook to pay taxes on the sum surrendered. The tax due on the surrendered income was al...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Departmental Catering (Northern Railways ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT97; [2006]146STC287(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. In this group of references, the following two questions have been referred to this Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue:-'1. The applicant having originally filed a single application seeking reference of one question relating to eleven different periods of assessments, whether the reference could validly be allowed to the applicant for all the eleven periods of assessments in question?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of the Respondents of selling food-stuffs etc. amounted to 'sale' and the case of the Respondent did not fall within the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd; 42 STC 386.2. So far as question No.1 is concerned, it does not arise out of the order made by the Tribunal. It was open to the Tribunal to reject the application if it was of the opinion that separate references are required, but for the same purpose, there cannot be a question o...