Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Applicant is working as Deputy Manager (Operational) with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. While confirming the demand on M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited the penalty is imposed on the appellant. The appeal filed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is still pending. In the impugned order there is no finding regarding commission or omission with intend to evade payment of duty against the appellant. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty is waived and Stay petition is allowed. In the present appeal the applicants are only challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, we are taking up this appeal for hearing. The penalty was imposed under Rule 26 of CENVAT Excise Rules.We have gone through the impugned order and in the impugned order there is no mention of any commission or omission on the part of the appellant with intend to evade paym...

Oosypine Mar-pack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. In the present case the applicant paid duty on the assessable value of the goods and while determining the assessable value the element of sale tax also taken into consideration and duty was paid from the MODVAT account. The Revenue is asking for the amount in question in cash on the ground that applicant has paid higher duty so that their customers can avail higher credit. As the applicant had already paid duty through their MODVAT account, therefore, prima facie, applicant had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal.The Stay Petition is allowed....

Aerofil (India) Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification is being denied on the ground that appellants are clearing the goods with the brand name, which belongs to other persons. On 6-1-2000 the Officers of the Revenue visited the premises and found that the appellants are manufacturing Liquid Soap. The appellants were clearing the products under their own brand name and as well as without any brand name. The goods, which were unbranded, were cleared to M/s.Verve Marketing Pvt. Ltd. On the same date another premises of M/s.Jahan Enterprises were also searched by the Revenue officers and during the search two cartons of Labels, Elements and Rubber stamps and goods manufactured by the appellant were also seized. The statement of the proprietor of M/s. Jahan Enterprises was recorded. In his statement he disclosed that after clearance of goods by the appellant, the labels are fixed on goods s...

M-real Corporation Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case the appeal has been preferred against the final finding to the extent that it has been held that imports had been made from the subject countries below their normal value. Admittedly, in the final findings no duty was recommended since it was held that the domestic industry had not suffered material injury or threat of material injury.The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the finding that dumping was done by the appellant will affect the reputation of the appellant, the appellant is entitled to challenge such a finding.It is also apprehended that in some future proceedings this final finding may be relied upon.2. The learned Counsel for the authority states on instruction, that the final finding as regards the dumping margin will have no bearing in any fresh proceedings that may take place in future and the apprehension of the appellant is misplaced.3. It appears to us that the final finding regarding dumping coupled with a finding that the domesti...

Shri Manoj Kr. Shah Vs. Shri Anand Kr. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ189

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 4 April, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the objections filed by the appellant herein under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short). The aforesaid objections under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code was filed by the appellant in Execution No. 2/97 titled Mr. Anand Kumar (decree holder) v. Mr. Sudesh Mehta (judgment debtor) for execution of a money decree for a sum of Rs. 3,65,345.58 plus costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.2. The appellant herein claims that he has purchased property bearing No. 201 in building No. 4327 at 3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi from the judgment debtor under Agreement to Sell, affidavit, special power of attorney, possession letter, indemnity bond and a Will executed on 22nd April, 2000. The general power of attorney and the Will are duly registered documents. The appe...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Respondent purchased one Tata Sumo from one Shri Vijay Veer Chabra on 23rd June, 1999 and obtained the insurance policy from the appellant against theft and other incidence for Rs. 3,36,000 on 25th June, 1999. Insurance Cover Note was issued in the name of respondent on receipt of cheque issued by him and on the strength of insurance receipt and sale letter and other documents. However, the vehicle was still registered in the name of the original owner in the Regional Transport Authority where the formalities for issuing registration certificate in the name of respondent were pending that in the meantime the vehicle was stolen on 4th November, 1999. The claim of the respondent was repudiated solely on the ground that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle and as such insurable interests were not transferred in his name. 2. Feeling aggrieved the respondent approached the District Forum and obtained the impugned order dated 14.8.2002 whereby the appella...

Greenways Vs. Jai Prakash

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Respondent purchased 21 sarees from the appellant for Rs. 70,320 as gift for his daughter-in-law on the occasion of marriage of his son. Out of these sarees three sarees were found to be defective. Vide ex parte order dated 26.11.2002, the District Forum has directed the appellant to refund the cost of those sarees amounting to Rs. 19,915 along with interest @ 9% and Rs. 5,000 towards damages. 2. According to the appellant sarees were sold to the respondent on sale by giving discount of 5% to 10% and when the respondent came to their shop after six months he created a scene and in order to avoid the unpleasant situation the appellant gave credit note of Rs. 11,500 and for the balance two defective sarees she again called the respondent to contact her but the respondent never contacted her. 3. The nature of the dispute between the parties particularly the fact that the complaint about sarees was made after six months and credit note of Rs. 11,500 was already g...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Garg and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Against Double Benefit Accident Policy of Rs. 50,000, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 18.8.1998 directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the widow of the deceased with 12% interest and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The policy was taken on 28.8.1989. Admittedly the half-yearly premium was due on 28.8.1990. There was also provisions of 30 days grace period to pay the premium as per terms of the policy and if the premium is not paid in the grace period policy lapses. At the same time it was also term of the contract that lapsed policy can be got renewed within five years with the consent of the appellant Insurance Company but during the lifetime of assured after the premium notice of schedule of late fees is given and the policy stands renewed automatically and automatic renewal takes place if the premium with late fees is paid within six months of the due da...

Bhagirathi Verma Vs. Eureka Forbes Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of having not been provided the agreed service in respect of Aquaguard water-filter-cum-purifier by the respondent-company, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 17.3.1997 has held the respondent guilty for deficiency in service and directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 700 out of the contracted amount of Rs. 900 and also directed to pay Rs. 200 as compensation and Rs. 300 towards cost of litigation. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Though according to the appellant, he purchased the Aquaguard water-filter-cum-purifier from the agent of the respondent company on the assurance that life time free service of the purifier would be provided but subsequently this assurance was found to be false and he entered into a three years service contract with the respondent on payment of consideration of Rs. 900. According to this contract, three periodical services per year as well ...

Gur Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. B.R. Tandon

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Main grievance of the appellant against the impugned order date 1.3.2005 passed by the District Forum is against the award of the interest on the deposit made by the respondent with the appellant Group Housing Society. 2. Broadly the facts more or less are not in dispute. Respondent was a member of the appellant society and paid Rs. 4,15,000 towards the cost of the flat. Since he could not pay the so-called payment arising out of the escalation in the price he opted to resign and surrender his membership. His application of surrender of membership was allowed and the money deposited by him was refunded. According to the respondent his resignation was subject to the condition that the amount deposited by him would be refunded with interest i.e., the amount of interest he had paid to the LIC from whom he had raised a loan. On the contrary, the stand of the appellant is that the respondent has been a habitual defaulter and never paid the instalments in time and ...