Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Poorvanchal Caterers and anr. Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ385(Del); 127(2006)DLT41; 2006(86)DRJ681; (2006)142PLR58

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction that the respondent No. 1, the Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd be directed not to deviate from the terms of the tender and general conditions of the license in awarding the contract to operate and manage on board catering services on Train No. 3351-52 to respondent No. 3. 2. As stated in para 4 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 advertised in the National Newspapers on 27.6.2005 inviting bids in sealed cover for operation and management of catering and onboard services on as many as 22 trains including the train No. 3351-52, Dhanbad/Tata-Alleppy Express (herein after referred to as the 'train'). A true copy of the advertisement is annexure P1 to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner submitted its bid within time in response to the said advertisement Clause 5.2 of the general conditions of license stated that the license to manage catering services will normally be awarded to the party qu...

Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs. Arvind Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT461; 2006(86)DRJ586

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.8.2002 by which he has been allowed.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) applied for posts of Lecturer advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). True copy of advertisement is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition.4. The writ petitioner was nominated for provisional appointment to the post of PGT /Lecturer(History) by the DSSSB vide letter dated 19.11.1999. However, it was subsequently observed that he did not fulfilll the educational qualification as per the recruitment rules for the post of PGT(History). Hence, the candidature/nomination of the writ petitioner for the post of PGT(History) was cancelled with the prior approval of the competent authority by their letter dated 21.3.2000 which is Annexure P-8 to the writ petition.5. It is stated in paragraph 4 (L) of ...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Talwinder Chaudhary and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT269

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.08.20042. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The petitioner took up a Medical Insurance Policy from respondent No. 2, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., whereby the petitioner was insured against any medical expenses incurred for the treatment of diseases or other exigencies. It is alleged that some time in the year 1998, the petitioner suffered from Cardiac arrest related problem, but the respondent No. 2 continued to renew the said Insurance Policy of the petitioner on the same terms and conditions. It is alleged that one Shri Trilochan Singh, Development Officer in the branch of respondent No. 2 used to get the Policy renewed from time to time and the premium was accordingly paid. The Policy was renewed up to the year 2002.4. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that when the said Insurance Policy became due for renew...

Gurukul Kangri Pharmacy Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to classification of the appellant's product "Brahmi Oil Herbs & Brahmi Amla Oil Herbs". Whereas the appellants have claimed the classification under Heading 3003.30, as Ayurvedic Medicines with the benefit of exemption Notification Nos.41/95-C.E. and 22/96-C.E., dated 14-6-95 and 1-4-96 respectively, Revenue has classified the goods under Heading 3305.99 as preparation of use on hair without perfume.2. After hearing both the sides duly represented and after examining the labels of the goods we find that the same have been described as "Visudh Ayurvedic Oushadhi, Ayurved Sarsangrah", we find that the goods have admittedly been manufactured out of the ingredients mentioned in the said Ayurvedic Text Book and as per the formula prescribed therein.Further, the goods are manufactured under drug license given by Drug Controller. The appellants have also produced on records various expert opinions from the Doctors which are to the effect that...

Unique Security and Consultants Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are providing security services to different customers. The service of security agency was brought under service tax with effect from 16-10-98. The department asked them to apply for registration under letter dated 17-6-1999 which was obtained by them on 21-6-2000 and they deposited the service tax of Rs. 40,500/- on 8-6-2000 for the period from July, 1999 to March, 2000. They also submitted some agreements made with their customers to the department.After examining the agreements, the statement of Shri R.D. Panchori, proprietor of the appellant concern was recorded on 17-7-2001. He admitted that he has deposited Rs. 40,500/- and he is providing security to Coach Factory, Bhopal and M.P. Housing Board etc. besides to Gas Rahat Hospitals and Railway Running Room. Finally he gave the list of the various departments and hospitals to which services were being provided. On the basis of this information and investigation made, it was revealed that during the period from 16...

intraport India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Igi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal is directed against recovery of drawback amount of about Rs. 97 lakhs. The order reads as under : I, therefore, order that an amount of Rs. 96,67,632/- paid to the exporter be recovered in terms of Rule 16A of the Drawback Rules. I also order that an amount of Rs. 58,54,144/- already paid back voluntarily by Ms. Intraport during the course of investigation should be adjusted against the above demand.2. The facts leading to the order are that the appellant had been exporting ready made garments during the period 1995-97 to USA and Europe. The total exports were declared over Rs. 23 crores. These exports took place under 72 shipping bills and, from time to time, the appellant received drawback amounts in respect of consignments exported.3. Proceedings were initiated under a show cause notice dated 9-11-2000 of the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence that there was non-receipt of payments in foreign exchange and therefore the drawback paid was required to be recover...

Baniyan and Berry P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of goods and declared the same as Stainless Steel Magnetic Scrap '400 grade'.The goods were examined by the Customs authorities and as per examination report, the goods are different type/sizes and Magnetic serviceable stainless steel sheets approximately 70% and 30% stainless steel scrap (400 grade). On visual examination, the goods appeared to be of second grade. In view of this examination report, the Customs authorities of the view that the goods were not as per declaration and the goods were serviceable stainless steel sheets. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and ordered to release of the same on payment of redemption tine and also enhanced the assessable value.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are actual user and the goods AND imported scrap which is to be used as input...

Rajasthan Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate and Shri S.N. Prasad, learned SDR we find that the appellant's claim of exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 in respect of iron and steel cast furniture was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the same cannot be considered as handicrafts inasmuch as the two conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Louis Shoppe and Anr. do not stand satisfied. We reproduced below the two conditions laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case : (i) It must be predominantly made by the hand. It does not matter if some machinery is also used in the process. (ii) It must be graced with visual appeal in the nature of ornamentation or in-lay work or some similar work lending it an element of artistic improvement. Such ornamentation must be of a substantial nature and not a mere pretence.2. After taking note of the process of man...

Madhya Bharat Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants are seeking stay of recovery of duty of Rs. 2,07,32,142/-.2. The applicants were clearing various varieties of papers and paying duty as per rate applicable with effect from 1-3-93. Exemption was granted to the paper manufactured by them under Notification No. 30/93 dated 28-2-1993 amending Notification No. 48/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91.Consequent to the issue of Notification No. 30/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93, the applicants submitted revised price list for approval effective from 28-2-93. Then, they again submitted another price list on 15-5-93 increasing the price of their product. These price lists were approved by the competent authority. During this period, they have issued the invoices for the paper cleared at the rate approved under the price list. Therefore, it is claimed that they have not charged any amount in excess of the value of the goods in the garb of excise duty. Hence, the credit was granted for recovery of the amount.3. On behalf of the revenue, it was con...

Berger Becker Coatings Pvt. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of paints. It is jointly owned by M/s Becker Industrifarg A.B. Sweden and Rajdoot Paints Ltd. 2. The issue raised in this appeal is the valuation of 18 inputs imported by the appellant from M/s Beker Industrifarg AB, Sweden for the manufacture of paints. Out of the 18 items, three items, being Sl.No. 4, 5 and 7, were imported by the appellant from unrelated parties also. In view of the relationship between the parties, the customs authorities rejected the transaction value for the purpose of assessment of imports from M/s Becker Industrifarg A.B. Sweden.Instead, the average price noted in the case of imports from unrelated buyers was applied for the assessment of the three items imported from M/s Becker Industrifarg A.B. Sweden. In regard to the remaining 15 items, which were imported from related person only, purchase prices from the related person were loaded to the extent of the average of the price differential (44.17%) in the import of the three...