Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT9

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. The sole question which arises in these writ petitions is as to who is the appropriate Government qua Cement Corporation of India which has been described in all these writ petitions as a Government Enterprise and has challenged a reference made by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the `ID Act') on the ground that the State Government is not the appropriate Government as per the definition of the `appropriate Government' under Section 2 of the ID Act. 3. Mr. Arun Birbal, the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner Corporation in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4792/1989 & 5318/1997 has pointed out the definition of an appropriate Government with particular stress on the petitioner Corporation being a controlled industry as has been specified on behalf of the ...

Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs. K.K. Chopra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The main grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 28.1.2005, whereby directions were given by the District Forum to remove all the defects as being faced by the respondent in the vehicle purchased by him from the appellant for Rs. 8,70,714/- which started giving trouble immediately after purchase as power steering stopped working and its oil leaked which was repaired and redesigned on 11.9.2003 and one of the tyres started getting inflated and was found that the same was bulging out and had a large cut. For selling on old model under the garb of the new model which was likely to be floated within a month or two, the appellant has been vide order dated 28.1.2005 directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service besides removing the defects. 2. Unfortunately, the respondent happens to be a President of the District Forum and the amount...

Sunil Steels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC39

1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned Order-in-Original vide which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 12,06,512 for the period November 1997 to May 1998 against the appellants.2. From the record, we find that the duty demand has been confirmed against the appellants as during the period in dispute, they were working under the Compound Levy Scheme and their Annual Production Capacity was determined by the competent authority. The plea raised by them before the authority was that, they had two rolling mills, but one out of those was closed from 13.11.1997, and later on it was dismantled even, and as such their ACP was required to be determined in respect of only one mill w.e.f. December 1997. This plea of the appellants was ordered to be considered by the Tribunal the time of setting aside of the earlier order of the Commissioner while determining their ACP.After that order of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has re-determined th...

Unison Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT462TriDel

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Unison Electronics (P) Ltd. and its Director, the issue involved is whether they are clearing the excisable goods manufactured by them bearing the brand name of another person.2. Shri S.D. Gaur, learned Consultant, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Ice-cream makers cooler and Popcorn makers and avail of the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification; that they sell Ice-cream maker in their own brand name "CREMICA" and sell the same to different customers including United Tele Shopping (UTS) and Tele Shopping Network (TSN); that in respect of sale to UTS & TSN the goods were being examined by the Supervisor of these customers before dispatch from their factory and stickers bearing UTS/TSN were being affixed; that these stickers bear the words "Checked Srl. No. Do not remove this sticker"; that the Department has treated the words UTS and TSN as brand name belonging to others and has disallowed the benefit of small scale exemption notificati...

Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC574

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), where the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing "Sunfill" a fruit flavoured drink mix and they were claiming the goods to be classified under sub-heading 2108.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act where they were entitled for 40% of the abatement from the MRP whereas the Revenue for the period, November 2001 to June 2003, directed them to clear the goods under sub-heading No. 2108.20 of the Central Excise Tariff where they were entitled for 35% of the abatement from the MRP, The appellants filed the refund claim on the ground that subsequently, the Revenue accepted their claim under Heading No. 2108.99 of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention is that during the period in dispute, the appellants were paying duty under protest and there was no order, of provisiona...

Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT146TriDel

1. The appellant, M/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of sugar as well as alcohol. Sugar and molasses are produced in one unit from sugarcane. The molasses so produced is transferred by pipelines to the distillery unit where it is converted into ethyl alcohol. The sugar unit and the distillery unit are separated by a railway line. All the same, the appellants sought single Central Excise registration for both units. The Commissioner, Central Excise rejected the same holding that "sugar and distillery division have separate premises".2. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the Commissioner's decision is not just inasmuch as both the units belong to the same manufacturer and the molasses produced in one unit is directly transferred to other unit for further manufacture of excisable goods. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that it is convenient for the parties to have the same Central Excise registration. He has also submitted that in the ...

Aero Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT393TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Aero Enterprises for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 4-11-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Shri M.M. Alam, learned Advocate requested for adjournment as the senior advocate was not available. We observe that this stay application has come up for hearing earlier on 9-2-2005 when also adjournment was sought by the learned Advocate. In view of this, we do not grant any stay. Shri M.M. Alam, learned Advocate did not argue the matter. We, therefore, heard Shri P.K. Rai, learned DR and perused the records.3. The applicants had imported laser engraver which has been ordered to be assessed by the Department without allowing the benefit of Notification No. 21/02-Cus., Sl. No. 251 (1); that the applicants filed an application for staying the operation of the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who under the interim order has dismissed their stay application holding that under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, ...

Mahadev Prasad Tyagi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ339CAT

"(i) Grant Hospital Leave to Shri Munish Kumar Tyagi from 23.11.92 to 14.3.96; (ii) Release his settlement dues including Invalid Pension, DCRG, Provident Fund, Insurance Money etc., which became due on 14.3.1996, without making any cut; (iii) Grant family pension to the employee's 2 children from 12.9.2001 onwards; (iv) Register the name of Mayank Tyagi, the son of the dead employee who was 11 years old at the time of his father's death, for Compassionate appointment on his attaining majority. Since priority for such appointment is reported to be on the basis of the date of registration, the registration in this case should be from 20.11.98, the date the grand father as his guardian submitted the application (Annexure A - VIII); (v) For the unconscionable delay in making any payment at all to the employee who suffered serious head injury on duty and was hospitalised and was in coma till 12.9.2001 when he died, the respondents should be liable to grant interest at 12% compounded annua...

inderjeet Nagpal Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Dri)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2495; 118(2005)DLT194; 2005(80)DRJ569; 2005(99)ECC569; 2006(193)ELT408(Del)

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. In anticipation of his arrest on account of being involved in fraudulent evasion of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 4.64 crores by way of mis-declaration and under valuation in respect of import of MPEG cards in the names of four firms, namely, M/s. Shri Krishna Impex, M/s. Damodar Enterprises, M/s. Marcos Enterprises and M/s. Nav Durga Enterprises, the petitioner seeks grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioner is running an office by the name of M/s. Everything International at his residential premises bearing No. C-163, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, which was raided by the officials of the respondent Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI), on 3rd of June, 2004 in connection with investigation in regard to import of MPEG cards by aforesaid firms by mis-declaring and under valuing the same as PCB. ON being so required, the petitioner appeared before the concerned DRI officials at 300 hrs on the same very day to join investigation ...

Arya Orphanage Vs. Mrs. Bimla Bedi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT152; 2005(81)DRJ399

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide order dated 17.2.2003, is No. 9602/2002 was allowed. Applicant/defendant was granted permission to file a written statement within one week subject to payment of cost in sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Plaintiff challenged the said order in appeal. Vide order dated 14.1.2005 passed in FAO(OS) No. 107/2003, by consent of parties, order dated 17.2.2003 was set aside. is No. 9602/2002 was revived with a direction that the same would be decided on merits. Accordingly, this order disposes of is No. 9602/2002.2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Plaintiff is a registered society established by Swami Shradhanand and is engaged in the activity of rendering charitable service to the society by upbringing and educating orphans, destitute boys and girls.3. Subject matter of the suit is property bearing No. 13, Barakhamba Road. As per the plaint, property belonged to late Lala Narain Dutta as a perpetual lessee under the Government...