Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Oswal Fats and Oils Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT287TriDel

1. All these three applications raise common issues and have been argued together. The applicant has challenged in these three appeals, the orders made by the Commissioner confiscating the goods in question under Sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, assessing the imported goods, palm acid oil at US $ 260 per metric tonne (PMT) and imposing penalty on the applicants.2. According to the applicants, they had imported palm acid oil at different prices at different periods, ranging from US $ 140 to US $ 170 PMT. The show cause notices were issued on the ground that contemporary price of palm acid oil imported from Malaysia was found to be at US $ 260 PMT around the same period when the imports were made by the applicants. The applicants maintained that the price shown was as per the transaction value entered into with the exporters of the goods.3. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the applicants were not supplied with the relevant documents showing the contr...

Shivam Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT415TriDel

2. On the face of it, the appellants have a strong prima facie case.Therefore, I allow the stay application.3. The appeal itself can be disposed of as the issue lies in narrow compass.4. The only issue involved in this appeal is, as to whether the antidumping duty imposed vide Notification No. 1/2002 is leviable on the Lead Acid Batteries imported by the appellants from M/s. Creative Image, Hong Kong, under invoice No. CI/01/1001, dated 14-1-2003 or not.5. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the above referred notification shows that the anti-dumping duty is leviable on the "industrial" and "automotive" batteries of Chinese origin imported from Hong Kong and not on any other category of batteries. The batteries imported by the appellants do not fall under these categories. Those are Lead Acid Batteries meant for UPS. The excise duty had already been paid by them. Therefore, no anti-dumping duty is leviable on the batteries imported by the appellant...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT76; 2005(83)DRJ90

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Against the well reasoned order dated 28.07.2004 made by learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 583/2001, the appellant Delhi Development Authority ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'DDA' ) has preferred the present appeal.2. The communication forwarded by DDA dated 09.07.2002 allowing extension of time to the petitioners (respondents herein) to complete construction of the building on plot bearing No. A - 25, Niti Bagh, New Delhi on composition fee in the sum of Rs.41,38,595/- was the subject matter before learned Single Judge.3. It is required to be noted that perpetual sub-lease was executed on 30.11.1972. However, before the two years during which construction was to be completed, Shri Chandra Bhan Aggarwal in whose favor document was executed expired on 30.06.1973. In view of large estate, it appears that there was a dispute amongst the legal heirs of late Shri Chandra Bhan Aggarwal and mutation ultimately attained finality on 24.08.2000. It is thereafter the appl...

Smt. Sushila Kumari Vs. Rama Stores

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi401; 120(2005)DLT479; 2005(83)DRJ197

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Late Sh. Bansi Lal, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6 purchased, vide registered sale deed dated 29.1.1980, a plot of land bearing Municipal No. 8, Sector-I, Punjabi Bagh Market, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Unfortunately for him the plot of land was under the occupation of M/s. Rama Store, defendant No. 1. It's partners were late Sh. Baij Nath, father of defendant No. 3 and Kishan Chand, defendant No. 2. Late Sh. Bansi Lal could not enjoy the use of the plot. His family members have also been denied the use thereof. Present suit seeks a decree for possession against the defendants in respect of the plot in question. Mandatory injunction is prayed for against the defendants directing them to remove the goods stored/stacked by them on the suit land. Damages from 3.5.1997 to 28.2.2000 in sum of Rs. 16,91,666/- and damages in sum by Rs. 1,89,000/- from 29.2.2000 to 2.5.2000 are claimed. Damages for continued unauthorised occupation during ...

Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Diya Sondhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT426; 2005(82)DRJ295

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Section 115 CPC by the petitioner/husband had originally challenged the order dated 21st July, 2003 which held that the issue of delay in filing of written statement and its consequences shall be considered after the decision in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this may not be the correct position in law as well as in equity because once an interim order for maintenance and litigation is passed, there is no disability on the part of the respondent wife to file a written statement/reply and this should not be delayed further. I am of the view that in matrimonial matters, the Court should ensure that interim maintenance is granted expeditiously and litigation expenses are paid to the wife. Once the litigation expenses and interim maintenance are paid to the wife, the Court should ensure that the written statement/reply be filed within a reasonable time thereafter.2....

Jyoti Prasad JaIn Vs. Desu

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking withdrawal of penalty for misuse of agricultural connection @ Rs. 500 per day from 14.5.1992 to 9.6.1992 and restoration of the power supply which was disconnected for non-payment of the misuse charges was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.1994. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Admittedly, the appellant was having agricultural electricity connection K. No. 532230 since 1987. On 15.12.1990 the premises was inspected by the official of the respondent and appellant was found to be misusing the agricultural connection for commercial purpose. Accordingly a show-cause notice for levying of higher tariff plus 25% surcharge was issued on 17.1.1991 and on the pointing out of the auditor of the respondent that there was omission to levy the proposed surcharge and misuse charge, the arrears from 15.12.1990 to November, 1991 were included in the bill for the month of January 1992. Since the bill was not paid t...

Jindal Steel and Power Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT375TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 9-7-2003 by which the Order-in-Original passed on 28-9-2001, rejecting the refund claim of the service tax amounting to Rs. 15,67,946/- of the appellant was upheld.2. The appellant filed a refund application on 25-5-98 for refund of Rs. 15,67,946/- in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Laghu Udyog Bharti v. Union of India , in which Sub-rules (xii) and (xvii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1944, to the extent they made persons other than the clearing and forwarding agents or the persons other than the goods transport operators as being responsible for collecting the service tax, are held to be ultra vires the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. It was held therein that the tax was on the value of the services and it was only the person who provided the services that can be regarded as an assessee. The charge of tax was on the person who was responsible for collecting the service tax. It was he...

Cce Vs. G.C. Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'speakers' with the brand name 'Pankaj' and 'Pankaj' and the same were sold to M/s. Dinesh T.V.Electronics. Revenue issued a Show-cause Notice to the respondents for denial of benefit of small scale exemption on the ground that respondents were clearing the goods with the brand name of 'Dinesh'.The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that there was no evidence on record to prove that the brand names 'Dinesh' and 'Pankaj' do not belong to the respondents and allowed the benefit of small scale exemption.2. The contention of the Revenue is that the proprietor of the respondent company Shri Gagan Chand in his statement specifically stated that the brand names do not belong to him. The admitted facts of the case are that the goods bearing the brand name 'Dinesh' are cleared to M/s. Dinesh T.V. Ele...

Hcl Infosystem Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT740TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. HCL Infosystem Ltd., is whether cost of software and charges for technical services are includible in the value of the computer.2.1 Shri Swaminathan, learned Consultant, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture computer hardware and office machines falling under Tariff Item 33D of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff; that the Appellants also carry out the following activities : (i) buying and selling computer peripherals, accessories, consumable, etc. (ii) providing technical services to their buyers which is basically to indoctrinate the buyers of the computer for getting optimum benefit from the use of the computers; & (iii) developing software to suit the needs of the individual customers who require the software and place orders for the same.2.2 He, further, mentioned that during the early eighties, when hardware production in India was at its primitive stage, the customers preferred composite services to be rendered by comp...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Devas Metal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT121TriDel

1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the part of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original regarding confiscation of finished/ unaccounted goods/short found input as detailed there.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that some parts and accessories of motor vehicle shape and sections as detailed in para 5 of the impugned order were found lying unaccounted in the factory premises of the respondents at the time of visit of the officers on 10-6-1998 for verification of the stock. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of the goods as well as imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the ground that the goods were lying still in the factory premises and the respondents had no intention to remove these goods by following the Tribunal's judgment detailed by him in para 5 of the order. But in view of the Bombay High Court judgment...