Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Rana Partap Setia Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 26.5.1998, passed by the District Forum whereby his complaint seeking direction to the respondent for energisation of commercial light electricity connection was partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000 for not energising the connection upto 31.3.1996 is that though he had taken the plea that the MPL licence of the appellants renewed by the MCD after 31.3.1996 but he could not produce the original sanction given by the MCD in this regard and on this account alone his complaint for energisation of the electricity connection was dismissed. 2. Since the appellant has now produced the copy of the renewed licence and on the other hand the Counsel for the respondent contends that the electricity connection was not energised because there was a policy of Government not to give commercial connection in the areas which were declared as residential area, this policy still survives. Mere issuanc...

Ganapathy Engg. Manufacturers P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is of 1987. The matter is before us again, on remand by the Apex Court (judgment dated 31st March, 2005 in Civil Appeal No.3804/2000).2. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is the Central Excise classification of switch fuses manufactured by the appellant. The impugned order dated 20th May, 1987 of the Commissioner in Order-in-Appeal No. 103/87 (CBE) held that the correct classification would be under Chapter 8536.90.3. The submission of the appellant is that in respect of the same product, a subsequent order, being Order-in-Original dated 31-1-89, has been passed by the jurisdictional Asst. Collector classifying the item under Heading 8537 and that order has become final between the parties.4. In view of the later order dated 31-1-89 of the jurisdictional Asst.Collector, classification is no more in dispute between the parties and both sides have accepted that the correct classification is under Heading 8537. Accordingly, impugned order which had tak...

P.V. Malhotra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All the three appeals are against the same impugned order.Therefore, these are being taken up together.2. Appeal No. E/3829/03-NB(S) is filed by Sh. P.V. Malhotra, Executive Director against the imposition of penalty. The Revenue has also filed appeal for enhancement of the penalty. Revenue filed second appeal against the impugned order whereby confiscation of semi-finished goods was set aside.3. The contention of the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sh.P.V. Malhotra, appellant, is that Mr. P.V. Malhotra, was working as Executive Director and was looking after the work of general administration, banking, etc. He was not incharge of excise work. The contention is that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty on the ground that the clandestine removal of finished goods and substitution with some finished goods could not have been possible without the consent and knowledge of the Executive Director. The contention is that there is no evidence to ...

Jind Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal.2. In these cases, the refund claims filed by the appellants, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti and Ors. v. UOI reported in 1999 (84) ECR 53 (SC), were rejected in view retrospective amendment of the law.3. The retrospective amendment was also challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Aambuja Cements Ltd. and Anr. v. UOI reported in 2005 (120) ECR 377 (SC) upheld the constitutional validity of provisions to Sections 116 & 117 of the Finance Act 2000. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the constitutional validity of the provisions was upheld, the service tax paid by the present appellants will be deemed to have been paid under the valid provisions. Therefore, request for refund of amount is not sustainable. In these circumstances, I find no...

Shri Sudhanshu Mittal, Chirag Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT1198TriDel

1. The applicant are seeking stay of the recovery of duty and penalty under the impugned order No. 3/RLH/Adj/2005-06 dated 29.4.05.2. It was pleaded that prima-facie there is no evidence against the applicant M/s. Chirag Enterprises for short payment of duty. The charge against the applicants is that they have mis-declared the purity of the zinc ingots imported by them and also mis-declared the weight. It was pleaded that there is no mis-declaration of the purity and the department has failed to produce any evidence that the purity of zinc ingots was 99.5%. The department has taken this purity on the basis of the imports by the other firms who had imported the goods from the same exporter. However, since examination report of the customs officers does not show nor any goods were seized for taking sample, therefore, the purity of zinc ingots cannot be taken as 99.95% on the basis of which the duty has bee demanded. It was also pleaded that weight of the zinc ingots has been correctly d...

Ruchi Health Foods Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant receives imported RBD Palmolein in containers. The palmolein so received is packed into 1 kg. Packs. Duty demands has been made in the impugned order on the ground that such packing amount to manufacture in view of the chapter note 4 to chapter 15. That note reads as under: - "4. In relation to the products of sub-heading Nos. 1502.00, 11503.00, 1504.00 and 15.08.1990, labeling or relabelling of Container and repacking from bulk packs to retails packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the products marketable to the consumer, shall amount to "manufacture".3. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the scope of the above chapter note was the subject matter of consideration by this Tribunal in the case of Ammonia Supply Company v. Commissioner of C. Ex. New Delhi - and the Tribunal held that packing from containers into smaller packs would not come within the meaning of the note. This order was followed in the case of Ram Kishore Chemic...

Cc and Ce Vs. Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals in view of the decision of the tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II (T). These ground that the Page 75 decision in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. was challenged by the Revenue in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 27th July, 2005, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue against the decision of the tribunal in the case of L.II. Sugar Factories Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Learned Counsel for the parties have drawn our notice to the relevant provisions of the Finance Act as it stood in the year 1994 and thereafter, as it stood after the various amendments to the Act in subsequent years. Having considered the relevant provisions of the act, the tribunal has, inter alia, recorded the following conclusions: The above would show that even the amended Section 73 takes in only th...

G.P. Puri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Both these appeals have been filed by S/Sh. G.P. Puri & Mahender Prakash against the common impugned order. Therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16-9-93, the premises belonging to Shri G.P. Puri, were searched by the Customs Officers and Sh.Mahender Prakash was found sitting over there and Indian currency to the tune of Rupees 1,37,880/- was recovered from the premises. Shri Mahender Prakash gave a statement to the Customs Officers stating that this currency was sale proceeds of smuggled gold, hence on the reasonable belief that this currency was liable to confiscation, the Customs Officers seized the currency. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants confiscating the currency and imposed the penalty on S/Shri Mahender Prakash and G.P. Puri.4. The contention of the appellants is that Shri G.P. Puri was not present at the spot and immediately after seizure on 7-10-93, he filed an application for claiming the curre...

Kamlawati and ors. Vs. Brij Mohan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC49; 2006ACJ2236; 123(2005)DLT623; 2005(84)DRJ246

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Suraj Bhan met with an accident on 29.1.2001 at about 4.00 P.M. at Burari Chowk. His parents, wife and 5 minor daughters filed a claim before the Tribunal. Holding the driver of the offending truck guilty of causing death of Suraj Bhan by driving the truck rashly and negligently, tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation payable to the claimants.2. In the present appeal, I am only concerned with the compensation assessed as the claimants seek enhancement of the compensation. There are no cross-objections by the owner, driver or the insurer of the vehicle.3. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was a driver by profession, tribunal held that minimum salary which the deceased would be earning in the year 2001 could reasonably be expected to be Rs. 3,000/-. Age of the deceased being 30 years, tribunal opined that by the time deceased would have left gainful employment, it could reasonably be assumed that he would be earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The gross ...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Kishan S/O Shri Badlu Singh and Pr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT596; 2005(84)DRJ276; (2006)ILLJ314Del

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 20th January, 2003 dismissing its writ petition being WP (C) No. 472 of 2003 whereby a challenge to an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal was rejected.2. The Respondent/workman was employed with the Appellant as an Assistant Fitter. He was issued a charge sheet dated 20th July, 1992 on the allegation that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty for a period of 43 days between January, 1992 and 13th July, 1992. It was alleged that the Respondent/workman did not submit any application for leave nor did he give any intimation in this regard. The allegation was that the Respondent/workman had committed misconduct within the meaning of Paragraph 19(f), (h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of employees of the Appellant. 3. A departmental enquiry was held against the Respondent/workman in which he was found guilty and thereafter by an order dated 3rd December, 1992 he was removed from service. 4. Since ...