Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Shiva Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter is called neither appellant appeared nor is there any request for adjournment. Accordingly, we have heard learned Sh.S.M. Tata, SDR and have gone through the impugned order.2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to valuation of the imported goods, which has been enhanced by the authorities below from US $ 800 PMT to US $ 890 PMT. The above enhancement is based upon the prices indicated in LME. There is no dispute that the supplier's invoice reflects the prices as US $ 800 PMT. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that since the appellant have paid the duty on the enhanced value without any protest, the enhanced value has to be accepted.3. We find that it is now settled law that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, invoice value has to be accepted. Enhancement of the same based upon LME prices is not correct inasmuch, as LME prices are, at best only indicative and are not final and conclusive.This is held by the Tribunal in the case of CC, Kandla ...

Mittal Roadways (India) and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT517; 2006(86)DRJ365

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi in OC-9500116. whereby the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 8.12.1998 has directed that the applicant/petitioner herein cannot sue the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 according to Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Claims application can be filed only in respect of the responsibility of the Railway Administration and that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 not being part of the Railway Administration cannot be proceeded with.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, are as under :The main claim applicants M/s Mittal Roadways (India) and Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta have filed the claim application under Section 16 of R.C.T. Act against Union of India through (1) G.M., N.Rly., (2) G.M., S.Rly., (3) Container Corpn. of India Ltd., (4) Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (5) Radhey Shyam Bros. (6) M/s Ganga Ram Gurdiyal & Sons (7) Modern Transport. The matter was...

Mr. Naresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Alliaz Securities Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC556; [2007]137CompCas360(Delhi); 126(2006)DLT138; 2006(86)DRJ171

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,01,770.50. The claim arises from the shares owned by the plaintiff which were handed over to the defendant for sale. The shares related to 32 companies and have been set out in para `4' of the plaint. The share certificates were delivered along with transfer deeds on or about 10.07.1997 to the defendant and these shares were then sold by the defendant in the market. The plaintiff has also filed a copy of the delivery ledger of the defendant company showing the transaction.2. The delivery of the shares to the defendant is not denied by the defendant but the stand of the defendant in the application for leave to defend is that some of the shares were returned back to the plaintiff on account of defects. In this behalf, along with a rejoinder, a letter dated 19.08.1997 of the defendant, ackno...

Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice-chairman Vs. Shri S.P. Ba ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT86

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9th February, 2000 in CWP No. 4653/1996.2. The Appellant had issued an advertisement in the newspaper for auction of several plots of land. One of the plots sought to be auctioned on 23rd October, 1996 was described as A-69 (corner plot), Jhilmil Industrial Area and the reserve price of this plot was shown as Rs. 13,00,281/-. Another plot to be auctioned on 25th October, 1996 was described as A-70, Jhilmil Industrial Area and the reserve price of this plot was shown as Rs. 11,82,073/-.3. The Respondent participated in the auction in respect of A-69 (corner plot) and offered the highest bid of Rs. 20,40,000/-. As required, he deposited 25% of the bid amount of Rs. 5,10,000/- immediately after the auction and the sale was then confirmed by the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant issued a demand letter to the Respondent asking him to depo...

Shashi Pal Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT88; 2006(86)DRJ363; [2006(108)FLR1193]

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against an impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 1.4.2003.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts have been stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same .4. The appellant was a teacher in the respondent school. It appears that he submitted his resignation on 17.3.1997. He alleged that he sent a letter dated 18.3.1997 withdrawing his resignation, but this fact has been disputed by the respondent and hence it is not necessary to go into this controversy, as it is a factual controversy. Admittedly, the resignation letter dated 17.3.1997 was accepted by the respondent with effect from 13.5.1997 vide page 40 of the paper book of this appeal. The said acceptance letter states:MODERN SCHOOLVasant ViharRef: MSVV/SPSHARMA/97-98/77May 13, 1997Dear Mr. S.P.SharmaThis is to inform you that we accept with regret your resignation letter dated 17th Marc...

Rathi Ispat Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the order-in-Appeal dt. 12.12.03 wherein the confiscation of the goods was upheld and redemption fine imposed was also upheld.2. The relevant facts for consideration are that the Preventive Officers visited the factory of the appellants. They compared the physical stock of raw-material and the finished goods with the books stock. They found discrepancy in the physical stock of the raw-material as well as the finished goods. In respect of finished goods, there was an excess stock of 131 MTs of S.S. Billets. On a reasonable apprehension that the said goods were seized. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the above said goods and for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confiscated the said goods imposed redemption fine, but did not impose any penalty on such confiscation. On an appeal by the appellants to the Commissioner(Appeals), redemption fine was maintained. Hence this appeal.3. Ld. Advocate...

M.R. Compound and Allied Products Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant seeks restoration of the appeals on the ground that there was some confusion in the mind of the learned counsel in respect of the date which was fixed for the hearing of the appeals. As stated in paragraph 4 of the application, the appeals were listed for final hearing on 17-1-2003 and that the learned counsel was informed about the date telephonically, but due to some confusion, he was informed that the date of hearing was 21-1-2003. However, the appeals that were fixed on 17-1-2003 were dismissed for default. No reply has been filed to this application despite it being adjourned for several times.2. During the course of hearing of this application, it has transpired that the Division Bench comprising of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (Judicial) and Mr. J.H. Joglekar, Member (Technical) had made an order on 21-12-1998 regarding pre-deposit to be made by the applicants. It appears from the original order sheet which is on record that the applicant-company was directed...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed these appeals against this adjudication Order No. 9 to 12/BRC/MP/99, dated 26-3-99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The two manufacturers viz. M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt.Ltd. has filed cross-objections. Since the appeals and the cross-objections are directed against the same order, they were taken up together and are disposed of under this common order.2. Material facts may be noted first. M/s. Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Dixon Utilities & Exports Ltd. are manufacturers of Television sets. They manufactured and supplied colour Television sets to M/s.Baron International Ltd. who marketed those T.V. sets through dealers.The dispute is about valuation of the colour Television sets so marketed, during the period 16-9-97 to 31-5-98.3. At the time of removal of sets from the factory, the assessable value of the Television sets was determined under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. That Section provides for determination of assessable ...

Sumitomo Electric Hardmetal Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants had exported cutting tools under shipping bill No.7823314 dated 3.7.2000. These goods were reimported under bill of entry No. 228291 dated 17.11.2000 containing 200 pieces of super hard material tools, claiming benefit of notification No. 158/95-Cus. dated 14.11.95. The goods were examined at the port with the shipping bill No. 7823314 dated 3.7.2000 and found to be identified with it. At the time of re-import, the bond to comply with the conditions of the notification No. 158/95-Cus. was also executed. According to condition No. 2 of the said notification, the appellants were required to re-export the goods within six months from the date of re-importation or such extended period not exceeding a further period of six months as the Commissioner of customs may allow. The goods were finally re-exported on 4.12.2001 after expiry of six months. Demand notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty of Rs. 1,49,717/-. The duty was confirmed by the original authority an...

Shivagrico Implements Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturer of iron and steel ingots covered by the Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. A scheme of payment of duty on the basis of annual capacity of production was announced by the Government which was made effective from 1.8.1997 but subsequently, the date of effect was changed to 1.9.1997 vide Notification No. 57/97-CE dated 30.8.1997. For the month of August, 1997, duty became chargeable at the rate of Rs. 600- PMT under notification No. 50/97-CE dated 1.8.97. The appellants came to know about the change of date of the implementation of the scheme of payment duty based on Annual Capacity Determination Rules after August. Therefore, they paid duty during the month of August based on the Annual Capacity Determination Rules. The duty for the month of August was paid on 4.9.97. When they came to know about the payment of duty for the month of August, at the rate of Rs. 600/- PMT, they filed a refund claim for the duty paid in excess during the month of A...