Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

S.S.i., D.U. Centre Vs. Akku Beig

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Aforesaid five appeals shall stand disposed of by this single order. 2. The appellant is a computer institute imparting all kinds of training to the young students in the field of computer. On its having been found guilty for misrepresenting to the respondents that the institute is recognized and affiliated with Delhi University and deficiency in service on their failure to complete the course within the stipulated period of seven and half months, the institute has been directed to refund the whole amount of the fee besides Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to each of the respondents on account of unfair trade practice and efficiency in service and destroying the educational career of the respondent-students. 3. At the outset the Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the institute is not recognized or affiliated to Delhi University. At the same time, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that by directing the appellant to refund the entire fee ...

G.T. Cargo Fittings India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC368

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the liability of the appellants to pay supervision charges in terms of Bond B-17 executed by them being an 100% EOU unit. The adjudicating authority had confirmed these charges amounting to Rs. 4,87,134 under Section. 142 of the Customs Act with penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act.2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, has wrongly observed that the order of the adjudicating authority confirming the above said charges were not appealable. He has also contended that even on merits, these supervision charges/cost recovery, charges could not be confirmed against the appellants for want of any evidence to prove that any officer of the Customs/Excise was ever permanently stationed at th...

Uniworth Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC643

1. The above appeals involving identical issue arising out of Order-in-Original No. 70/CH.27/Commr/2003 dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur, by which the demand of excise duty of Rs. 8,92,913 has been confirmed together with interest and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 has been imposed and Order-in-original No. 77/Cus/Commr/2003 dated 28.8.2003 by which the demand of duty of Customs of Rs. 98,77,725 has been confirmed together with interest (Basic Customs Duty Rs. 53,73,466 plus Auxiliary Customs Duty Rs. 1,06,140 plus Additional Customs duty Rs. 40,75,876 plus Special Additional Customs Duty Rs. 3,22,243) and penalty of equal amount has been imposed. The appeals involve identical issue and are hence taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.2. Appellants herein are a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the activity of generation of electricity for which they availed the benefit of duty free procurement of raw materia...

Sudarshan Telecom Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR218(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator and discloses the indifference of the public sector undertakings on their belated response to the request for appointment of an arbitrator and the consequences thereof. 2. The parties to this petition entered into a tender/contract for purchase of 12 Fibre(12F) and 24Fibre(24F) Optical Fibre Cables by the respondents. The petitioner is the supplier and the purchaser/respondent is the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Clause 20.1 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-'Clause 20.1-In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection therewith (except as to the matters, the decision to which is specifically provided under this agreement), the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration ...

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

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT123; 2006(1)SLJ330(Delhi)

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. Pursuant to an Award dated 27th February, 2001 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (the Tribunal) the petitioner moved an application under Section 33C(l) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of back wages but by the impugned order dated 12th July, 2001 the petitioner was told to have the amount computed under Section 33C(2) of the Act.2. The operative portion of the Award passed by the learned Tribunal reads as follows:'20. In view of the matter I find and held that the termination of the service of the workman was void and inoperative and it is declared that the workman shall be in continuous service with all consequential benefits with full back wages accessible to him under law. The terms of reference is replied accordingly and the award is given in the like manner.'3. Section 33C(l) of the Act reads as follows:'33C. Recovery of Money Due from an Employer-(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a ...

Mangt. of Ccw Vs. Partap Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT307; [2005(105)FLR227]; (2005)IILLJ146Del

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. A preliminary issue raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the reference before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not competent inasmuch as jurisdiction in the case vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal since the respondent/workman was a Government servant.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is an industry nor is there any dispute that the respondent/workman is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). Quite clearly, the respondent/workman is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the machinery available under the Act notwithstanding the existence of the Administrative Tribunals Act.3. It may be pointed out that in A. Padmavalley v. CPWD, 1991 (1) SLR 245, a Bench of five members of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench took the view that in matters pertaining to the Industrial Disputes Act, an applicant seeking relief must ordinarily exhaust th...

Commissioner of Customs, Icd Vs. Cyber Express Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC15

1. These are four appeals, filed by the Commissioner of Customs against the Order-in-Original No. 124/2000, dated 8-12-2000, by which the Commissioner (Customs) has confiscated CD Roms under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50 lakh and imposed penalty on M/s. Cyber Express Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner, however, has not imposed penalty on other respondents, namely, Sh. G.D. Bhaiya and Sh. Sachin Bhaiya, both Directors in the respondent company and Sh. Gope Lakhaney, General Manager.2. All the four appeals have been filed in terms of the Review Order No. 261-R-2001, dated 7-12-2001 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in exercise of the powers under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act. It is mentioned in the Review Order that the Board is of the view that the impugned order is not legally correct and proper inasmuch as Commissioner has refrained himself from imposing any penalty on Sh.G.D. Bhaiya, Sh. Sachin Bhaiya...

C.C., Icd Vs. Cyber Express Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC16

1. These are four appeals, filed by the commissioner of Customs against the Order-in-Original No. 124/2000 dated 8.12.2000, by which the Commissioner (Customs) has confiscated CD Roms under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50 lakhs and imposed penalty on M/s. Cyber Express Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner, however, has not imposed penalty on other respondents, namely, Shri G.D. Bhaiya and Sh. Sachin Bhaiya, both Directors in the respondent company and Shri Gope Lakhaney, General Manager.2. All the four appeals have been filed in terms of the Review Order No. 261-R-2001 dated 7.12.2001 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in exercise of the powers under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act. It is mentioned in the Review Order that the Board is of the view that the impugned order is not legally correct and proper inasmuch as Commissioner has refrained himself from imposing any penalty on Shri G.D. Bhaiya, Shri Sachin Bh...

Manohar Lal Hira Lal Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC127

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment to the refund claim of the appellants.The authorities below have rejected the refund claim of the appellants of Rs. 32,779 by applying this principle.2. The learned counsel has contended that the price of the goods charged by the appellants was a tentative price and that Rule 9-B had no application and that the buyers of the goods had already reversed the excess credit availed by them earlier. The learned counsel has also referred to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Mafatlal Indus.Ltd. v. Union of India, 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC), to further contend that excess amount of duty paid by the appellants is refundable by the Department.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the ...

R. Tomassoni Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)1SOT150(Delhi)

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate orders of the learned CIT (A) for assessment year 1993-94. Since facts and issues involved in both the appeals are substantially identical and these appeals have been heard together, these are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.The appellant-assessees involved in these appeals are individuals of Italian nationality and have been employed by M/s. Snamprogetti SpA, a company formed and incorporated under the Italian law and having its registered office and principal place of business in Italy. In February, 1988, M/s. Snamprogetti SpA had entered into a contract with M/s. Arawali Fertilizer Chemicals Ltd. (AFCL) of India, subsequently renamed M/s, Chambal Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (M/s.CFCL,hereinafter referred to as) under which it agreed to provide to the Indian company Various technical services for the purpose of construction, erection and commissioning of its fertiliser plant in the S...