Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Eicher Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC452

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tractors. Its entire production is sold to its holding company. The dispute raised in these appeals is in regard to Central Excise Valuation of the tractors. The impugned orders have held that the sale price to the holding company should be rejected (being sale to a related party) and the sale price of the holding Company to unrelated parties taken as the assessable value. The orders have relied on the third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act and definition of 'related person' in Section 4(4)(c) in passing the orders. Order-in-Original No. 3/AC/V/P1 dated 28.10.80 states as under: "4.11 have gone through the records of the case. The definition of "related person" has been given in Sub-section 4(c) of Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which is reproduced below: "Related person" means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of eac...

Simplex Engg. and Foundary Works Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT492TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Simplex Engg. & Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd., is whether the Mechanical Equipments manufactured by them for Hot Strip Mill are classifiable under sub-heading No. 8455.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by them or under sub-heading No. 8455.90 of the Tariff, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order.2.1 Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture and supply the following mechanical equipment for Hot Strip Mill: 2.2 He further mentioned that a show cause notice dated 4-1-1996 was issued for classifying the goods at Serial Nos. (i) to (xii) under sub-heading 8455.90 and Serial No. (xiii) under Heading 84.31 and four more show cause notices were issued for demanding Central Excise duty for the period from April, 1996 to October, 1996; that the Asst.Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 1/2001, dated 9-5-2001 classified the goods under Heading No...

Mr. G.K. Ahuja Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ340; (2004)IIILLJ960Del

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of his retiral benefits. Petitioner had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (In short V.R.S). The grievance of the petitioner is that unauthorised deduction was made out of the amounts due to him on account of V.R.S. Petitioner protested against the same. Over a period of time, the controversy got narrowed down. Notional increments for the period of suspension were being computed. Based on the proceedings that took place in the writ petition, the petitioner accepted payments of Rs. 24,366.42 and Rs. 35,082.37 on 22nd October, 2003, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Bhalla has submitted that the only subsisting grievance of the petitioner is with regard to denial by the respondent of counting the ''period of suspension'' as period...

Suresh Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ6

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The appellant challenges his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon him vide orders dated 21.10.1998 and 24.10.1998 respectively by learned additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. According to the prosecution, on 6.3.1997 at about 9.25 p.m., the appellant poured kerosene oil on his wife Kamlesh and put herby on fire as a result of which, she sustained burn injuries and succumbed on 8.3.1997. 2. A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Ramji Lal Gupta, a neighbour of the appellant, who was one of the first persons to reach the spot and who found deceased Kamlesh in a badly burnt condition crying in pain. She was saying that herby husband had burnt herby. He informed the Police and with the help of Police Control Room staff, removed herby to Jai Prakash Narain Ho...

Batavarlal M. Patel Vs. Nbcc Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR97(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT117

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator. 2. The parties to this petition entered into an Agreement dated 27th October, 1999 for construction of M.T. Pool Buildings & Allied Works at Civil Airport, Vadodara. The petitioner is the Proprietorship concern and the respondent is the National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited(in short the `NBCC'). Clause 76 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-'Clause 76 ARBITRATIONExcept where otherwise provided for in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right matter of thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relatin...

Om Prakash Miglani and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT337

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. Crl. Revision Petition 442 of 2004 & Crl. M. 6448 & 6450 of 2004:1. By this petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.12.2003, passed by the Court of learned ACMM, Karkardooma, Delhi, framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 186/333/353/34, IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the charge under Section 333, IPC, of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty provides for punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the learned ACMM ought to have committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209, Cr.P.C. Learned APP for the State does not contest the above legal position.2. In view of the above, order dated 15.12.2003 is set aside and the learned ACMM is directed to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned ...

Natavarlal M. Patel Vs. Nbcc Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR281(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT129

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator. 2. The parties to this petition entered into an Agreement dated 27th October, 1999 for construction of M.T. Pool Buildings & Allied Works at Civil Airport, Vadodara. The petitioner is the Proprietorship concern and the respondent is the National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited(in short the `NBCC'). Clause 76 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-'Clause 76 ARBITRATIONExcept where otherwise provided for in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right matter of thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relatin...

North Delhi Power Limited Vs. Chander Bhan

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The respondent had applied for tube well connection on 16.10.2002 to the then Delhi Vidhyut Board which has since been taken over by the appellant company namely North Delhi Power Limited. Till the filing of the complaint, the application of the respondent remained pending and was not processed due to some policy guidelines to be framed by the appellant. Merely because the DVB had been taken over by the appellant does not mean that the consumer should wait for long due to failure of administrative mechanism. Once a person applies for connection, deposits the requisite fees and completes all the formalities as per rules he is entitled to get the connection irrespective of the fact that the authorities have changed hands. No person can be asked to wait indefinitely merely because the concerned authority has to take a decision with regard to the policy or guidelines. Respondent has been rightly compensated for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. ...

Corp Health Products Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC353

1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal).2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12th January, 2002 the Officers of Central Excise Department visited the factory premises of the appellant and during physical verification is was found that certain inputs on which appellant had availed the Modvat credit was stored in the premises of M/s. Indo Bulgar Food Ltd. Goods stored at Indo Bulgar Foods Ltd. was taken into possession. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on redemption file of Rs. 16 Lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 4 Lakhs was imposed on the appellant. On Appeal filed by the appellants Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal.3. The contention of the appellant was that they are engaged in the manufacture of Insecticides, Fungicides and availing Modvat Credit in respect of inputs. Due to shortage of storage facility in their factory, the appellant vide their letter dated 17.5.97 made a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indodan India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT313TriDel

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the "MILKAFE" manufactured by the respondent is classifiable under Heading 2107.91 of Central Excise Tariff. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that under the present show cause notice no demand can be confirmed in respect of the differential duty, as no show cause notice was issued under Section 11A of Central Excise Act for recovery of the differential duty.Nestle India Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana [2004 (169) E.L.T. 22 (T) classified the Nescafe Pre-mix which is the similar goods under Heading 21-01-10 of Central Excise Tariff. The contention of Revenue is also that respondents are liable to pay duty as per the Tariff Heading 2101.10 of Central Excise Tariff" as the goods are liable to pay duty under this heading. Contention of the respondent is that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nestle India Ltd. th...