Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Tuftween Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC471

1. In these 4 appeals - 3 filed by M/s. Tuftween Petrochemicals and one appeal filed by Revenue - the issue involved is about the availability of Cenvat Credit in respect of Special Boiling Point Spirit (SBPS in short).2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the assessee manufacture number of adhesives and Organic composite solvents and avail of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs; that the Revenue has disallowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs namely Cixon and SBPS on the ground that these are excluded from the definition of inputs as given in Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 being motor spirit commonly known as petrol. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the definition of the input as given in Cenvat Credit Rules excludes High Speed Diesel Oil and Motor Spirit commonly known as petrol; that the inputs in respect of which they are availing Cenvat Credit are not commonly known as petrol; the petrol is one of the variety of motor spirit and all ...

Lalit Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ86CAT

1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 28.8.2002, imposing upon him a punishment of withholding of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect a$ well as order on review dated 29.1.2004, upholding the punishment.2. Applicant who was working as an Executive Engineer (Electrical) Group 'A' Service on regular basis, on the basis of a preliminary enquiry (PE, for short) was served with a memorandum of articles of charge under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, whereby on 16.9.96 alleging that applicant has manipulated the figures in the supply order with the result of financial gain to the agency and also his negligence which resulted in overpayment of Rs. 1.03 lakhs to the agency while releasing the payment on 'part rate' after accepting the supply of L.T.panels. Lastly applicant was alleged for acceptance of the lesser frame size of alternator without obtaining prior approval of the Competent Authority regarding its technical acceptability and without getti...

Om Prakash Gulshan Vs. J.D. Gulshan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi360; 118(2005)DLT91; 2005(80)DRJ551

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated March 8, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 311 of 2003 whereby the learned Additional District Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition of the suit land and also or payment of mesne profits.2. The aforesaid suit was filed by respondent No. 1, who is the brother of the appellant herein and also of the respondents 2 to 5. In the said suit a decree was sought for partition of the suit property and also for possession and also for recovery of an mount of Rs. 36,000/- and for rendition of accounts. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed as many as seven issues. The parties also led their evidence and thereafter the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to hear the parties. He passed a preliminary decree of partition in the suit and also for payment of mesne profits by the appellant at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of fi...

The General Manager (Commercial), Northern Region, Indian Airlines and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT83; 2005(80)DRJ561

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 1st May, 2003 holding that the arbitration clause 19 of the agency agreement is valid. As a matter of fact, the impugned order was in favor of the petitioner. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not applicable. Our attention has been drawn to Clause 19 of the agency agreement which is at page 4 of the paper book. As the same would be relevant for adjudicating the controversy, the same is reproduced below:-''19. ARBITRATIONEvery dispute, difference or question which may at any time arise between the parties hereto, touching or arising out of or in respect of this Agreement of agency of the subject-matter hereof, shall be referred to arbitration as provided under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 with all its modifications/amendments up to date at DELHI only. Each party to the present Agreement wil...

Kuldeep Singh and anr. Vs. D.S.S.S.B and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT101; 2005(80)DRJ503; 2006(2)SLJ401(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. These writ petitions raise an important question which will have an impact on every citizen of India aspiring for Government appointment through the aegis of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in brief 'DSSSB'). In the present case we are concerned with the Advertisement carried in Sundry National Dailies in respect of the Miscellaneous Posts-2002 in which the User/Requisitioning Department is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Advertisement discloses that there were 421 vacancies on the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Unreserved (UR) category. The Petitioners before the Court belong to this category. The Examinations were conducted on 27.10.2002. A 'Merit List' which I consider to be more in the nature of the Examination Result was thereupon prepared by the DSSSB in respect of each and every candidate who had appeared in that Examination. The Advertisement did not contain any stipulation pertaining to the minimum qualifying marks that ...

Austbulk Shipping Sdn Bhd Vs. P.E.C. Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR6(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking enforcement and execution of the foreign award dated 30th May, 2001 passed by the sole arbitrator Mr.William Robertson. The said award was made at London as per the English law on 30th May, 2001 and 1st November, 2001. The records placed before me reveals that the said award was an ex parte award. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that it had entered into a charter party agreement with the respondent on 20th April, 2000 containing an arbitration clause. It is also alleged that the said charter party governed the rights of the parties. According to it the charter party was duly signed on behalf of the petitioner and was forwarded to the respondent's agent M/s.Forbes Gokak Limited, Patvolk Division , Mumbai for obtaining signature of the respondent under FAX dated 29th April, 2000. It is also alleged that the respondent also opened a Letter of Credit dated 13th March, 2000 with the desire to import 1...

New Delhi Municipal Council and ors. Vs. Sohan Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT653

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.CRP No. 1197/2003 & CM No. 2709/20031. The present petition is directed against the order dated 1.9.2003 passed by Addl. District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for damages and mesne profits against the petitioner. On account of non-appearanceof the Counsel for the petitioner on 16.5.1996, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC for setting aside the ex parte order. The application was also dismissed on 8.12.1997. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge passed ex parte judgment dated 2.9.1998 in favor of the respondent passing a decree of Rs. 27,096/- against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC which was also dismissed by Civil Judge on 14.5.1999, Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi which was also dismis...

Sr. Supdt., Post Office Vs. Naresh Kumar Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of deficiency in service in not delivering the passport of the respondent which was transmitted by registered post by the respondent No. 2, Regional Passport Officer, the appellant has vide impugned order dated 18.8.1997 been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost for the harassment and inconvenience and avoidable duress he has been subjected to. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2 The Counsel for the appellant has referred to the provision, of Section 3 of the Indian Postal Act which only renders the appellant liable to pay Rs. 100/- for mis-delivery or short delivery of an article or delivery of an article in damaged condition. 3. In our view this liability is only for the limited purpose and not for the purpose of compensating consumer on account of deficiency in service on the part of provider of service. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an independent Statute and is self-contained and does not postula...

Oaykay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT57TriDel

1. Perused the records and heard both sides. The case relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The charge against the appellant is that it exported goods without following the correct procedure of Executing Bond. Reference in this connection is made in the adjudication order to the supplementary instructions of September 2001 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The contention of the learned Counsel is that export took place during the period July to August 2001, before the Supplementary instructions were issued. It is also being pointed out that appellant had cleared the export goods from its factory under ARE-1 form and that form had been signed by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. Thus, full facts about the procedure being followed by the assessee were known to the Central Excise authorities. Learned Counsel further emphasized that the goods in question had been exported and the proof of export ha...

K.L. Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC515

1. The case involves a duty demand of about Rs. 90,000/-. This has arisen from shortage and excesses noticed at the time of stock taking on 25-1-1995. When the case came up before this Tribunal the matter was remanded under our Final Order No. A/751 /97-NB - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 406 (T) with the direction to give the appellant a copy of work sheet and other materials which were relied upon by the Department. Pursuant to this order, the case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner on 15-2-2000. The Additional Commissioner dropped the duty demand with the following observations : "I have carefully gone through the page referred to above. The said worksheet pertained to physical verification of stock of waste and scrap. I have noticed that from Sl. No. 1 to 13, the weighment of scrap has been done on actual weighment basis. That is the tare weight of trucks have been reduced from the gross weight of loaded trucks. However immediately after that a weight of 72.040 MT has been specifie...