Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Frontier Alloy Steels Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appeals were filed against the common impugned order. The appellant M/s. Frontier Alloy Steels Ltd. (hereinafter referred as FASL) are engaged in the manufacture of spring steel rounds, and other excisable goods. The other appellant M/s. Frontier Springs Ltd. (hereinafter referred as FSL-2) is engaged in the manufacture of coil springs and leaf springs out of spring steel rounds received from FASL, and leaf springs were supplied to Railways. The coil spring and leaf springs were manufactured as rounds as per drawings provided by the Indian Railways. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant that FASL manufacture allow steel rounds weighing 2622.23 MT for supply to FSL 2 without getting them entered into their RG 1 record and the same were supplied without payment of duty to FSL 2. The FSL 2 manufacture and supply the coil springs to Indian Railways out of alloy steel rounds received without payment of duty. It is also like that FASL obtained alloy stee...

Ct. Vijay Singh S/O Shri Puran Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications involving same/similar question therein. The facts having been extracted from OA No. 58/2008 reveal that the applicant was appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on 1.5.1994. His case is that he was falsely implicated in criminal case FIR No.20/2000 dated 17.4.2000 Under Section 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was placed under suspension w.e.f. 17.4.2000 vide order dated 24.4.2000. He was convicted in the criminal case aforesaid by Special Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 4.12.2007 and was sentenced to undergo RI of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-.He was also to undergo imprisonment of three months in default of payment of fine. He preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court, which has since been admitted and is pending disposal. The respondents, on 9.12.2005, issued a circular vide which an employee could...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Waseem and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2242

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Counsel for the appellant contends that in case of cancellation of insurance policy there has to be complete exoneration of liability of the insurance company. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the insurance company has been made responsible to pay the amount and then recover it from the insured although the contract itself was cancelled. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : AIR2008SC767 , Deddappa and Ors. v. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.3. At the first blush, I found myself in agreement with the counsel for the appellant but after closely examining the facts of the present case, I do not find that the ratio of the said judgment is applicable in the facts of this case.4. In this case, the Tribunal has observed in the award that the appellant insurance company did not intimate to the registering authority about th...

Shakuntala Devi Vs. N.S. Mohan Chit Fund and Finance Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT510

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.2. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 12th January, 2001 rendered by the Learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 55/1997 filed by the appellant/plaintiff which was dismissed on the following grounds:(a) The suit was beyond limitation; and(b) The suit was not filed by an authorized person; and(c) The power of attorney of the appellant namely Shri R.L. Aggarwal, husband of the appellant did not have locus standi to file the present suit.3. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:4. The appellant being a member of the chit fund was paid a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- by the respondent/defendant by issuing a cheque dated 2.10.93 drawn on Bank of Baroda. The cheque was revalidated on 4.10.1994 as the defendant, according to the appellant/plaintiff, had pleaded that it should not be presented till then as there was shortage of funds. On 4.10.1994, the said cheque was revalidated and the suit for recovery of the...

Mrs. Reba Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Sh. Rajiv Behl

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT99

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. After both parties closed evidence an application was filed by the plaintiff pleading as under:1. That the plaintiff has filed the afore-said suit for specific performance of the collaboration agreement dated 6th September, 1995 which had been entered in between him and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and in the alternative for the relief of damages.2. That the facts and circumstances as stated in the accompanying suit may be read as part and parcel of this application. The same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and to avoid unnecessary repetition. The plaintiff applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the same at the time of hearing.3. That the present application is being made seeking summons for the attendance Mr. B. Chakrawarthy S/o B.P. Chakrawarthy address as given herein above who is the attesting witness of the receipt dated 6.9.1995.4. At this stage it is pertinent to mention that the receipt date...

Tilak Raj Vs. National Insurance Company Limited.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The claim of the appellant against medi-claim policy was repudiated by the respondent for non-disclosure of pre-existing disease, consequently the appellant filed instant complaint before District Forum. 2. Vide impugned order dated 8.11.2002, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant by accepting the version of the respondent that the appellant has not disclosed that a year before he was suffering from same disease and was admitted in the hospital. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that the first policy was taken in the year 1993, which was valid for a period of one year w.e.f. 21.10.1993 to 20.10.1994. Admittedly the appellant had taken claim against the policy for Rs. 13,518 for the treatment of Pseudo Pancreatic Cyst. After expiry of the said policy another renewed policy was issued by the respondent, which was valid from 13.2.1995 to 12.2.1996. How...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Appliance Technologies India Limited.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly, the respondent obtained insurance policy from the appellant in respect of a vehicle covering risk of theft of damage and due to accident. The car was taken away by a person who intended to purchase the same and wanted test drive. Consequently he lodged a complaint with the police and claim with the appellant. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the insurable interest stood transferred as the car had already been sold to the person, who had taken it for test drive. Consequently the respondent filed the instant complaint before District Forum seeking indemnification of loss and compensation.. 2. Vide impugned order dated 4.6.2007, the District Forum allowed the complaint with the following directions to the appellant: (i) OP will pay Rs. 3,80,000 to the complainant as insurance amount and the complainant will issue a letter of subrogation in favour of the OP and will inform RTO concerned to change the ownership in the name of OP. (ii...

Abhishek Tours and Travel Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ24CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in revision passed by Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the penalty imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act were enhanced.3. The contention of the appellant is that they had now paid the Service Tax along with interest. The contention is that the appellant had not paid the tax on due date as they were under the bona fide belief that they are exempted under Notification No. 3/99-ST dated 28.2.99 being a small service provider. The contention is that the matter was entrusted to their CA to defend their case before the Commissioner of Central Excise. However, the CA could not appear before the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, ex parte order has been passed.The contention is that they were under bona fide belief that they are exempted from payment of Service Tax, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, they are not liable for any penalty.4. Heard ld. Jt. CDR. The contention is that the appell...

Bhagwati Gases Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC195

1. This appeal on behalf of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur dated 13.8.2008 dismissing its appeal holding the same to be not maintainable. The learned Commissioner observed that the communication impugned in the appeal before him was advisory in nature and no direction had been issued to the appellant. The impugned communication may be notes in extenso at the outset as under: Please refer to your letters No. BGL/DEL/2006-07/202 dated 27.10.2006 and 210 dated 06.11.2006 on the above subject. 2. The matter was re-examined by the competent authority and I have directed to inform you that your request can not be acceded because the categorization of capital goods made by the Hon'ble Tribunals as 'used capital goods' which is different from capital goods removed as such' is under challenge and has not been finally accepted. 3. Your request for applying depreciation on capital goods, at the rate mentioned in the er...

Vmt Spinning Co. Ltd., Arisht Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ48CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. These are applications by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. The appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.7.2007 dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Excise.The dispute relates to levy of service tax under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides for levy of service tax on the taxable services referred to in various sub-clauses of clause of Clause (105) of Section 65 of the Act. Section 68 which provides for payment of the service tax lays down that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in Section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.Sub-section (2) of Section 68, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), in respect of any taxable service notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid...