Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 4 of about 110 results (0.020 seconds)Pinj Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR157(Delhi); I(1991)BC254; 1991(20)DRJ154
Santosh Daggal, J.(1) MESSRS. Panj Sons Pvt. Ltd. (appellant herein), filed a suit seeking issuance of permanent injunction, against Messrs. General Electric Technical Services Company Inc., (for short 'GETSCO'), restraining them through their agents, employees etc. from encashing or seeking encashment of the bank guarantee dated January, 1988 as furnished by the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Copporation, respondent No. 1 herein. seeking correspondingly decree again the bank restraining it from making payment under the aforesaid guarantee or the cashier order to GETSCO.(2) Simultaneously, an application under order 39 Rule 1,2 and 3 read with Section 151 Code or Civil Procedure was filed-seeking an ad interim injunction against the respondents in the same terms, as prayer in the suit It appears that an ex-parte interim injunction was issued in the first instance as prayed for, but on an application being made by Getsco under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. the said order was. vacated, and applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Swan Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC675Tri(Delhi)
1. The notice for hearing fixed for 24-9-1990 was sent to the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due. The notice was received by them, as is apparent from the postal acknowledgement due card. None, however, was present on their behalf for the hearing. We, therefore, heard the arguments of the learned SDR, Shri Rajesh Dhingra and reserved the order.2. The facts, in short, are that under Notification No. i32/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977, yarn used by composite textile mills in the manufacture of cotton fabrics was exempted from the payment of Central Excise Duty. This notification was withdrawn from the mid-night of 14th/15th July, 1977. During the period from 18-6-1977 to the midnight of 14/15-7-1977 the respondents manufactured cotton fabrics using cotton yarn manufactured in the same composite mill. The fabrics lying in stock on 14/15-7-1977 were cleared later on and the Department charged Central Excise Duty on the cotton yarn contained in the fabrics. The respondents f...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayalakshmi Bottlers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT105TriDel
1. The issue involved in both these appeals is common one and therefore, a common order is being passed.2. Short question involved in both these appeals is whether the appellants are disentitled to the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 dated 19-6-1980 by way of a refund of duty already paid on clearances during the period 23-8-1980 to 27-2-1981, in the absence of any declaration referred to in para 3 of the said notification.3. By virtue of para 3 of said notification, a manufacturer who had not cleared any specified goods (aerated water in the present case) in the preceding financial year was entitled to the full exemption from payment of duty on the first clearances upto 7.5 lakhs during the financial year 1980-81, if he gave a declaration that (i) he is not likely to exceed the total clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs worth of specified goods during the financial year 1980-81 and that he did not actually exceed the said limit during 1980-81. It is not disputed that the appellants herein di...
Tag this Judgment!Spring Fresh Drinks Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)LC113Tri(Delhi)
1. The case of the appellants is that they are a Private Limited company and are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters namely, Cola, Orange, Lemon, Trip & Soda. These aerated waters are manufactured under a Frenchise agreement entered into with M/s. Campa Beverages (P) Ltd., New Delhi. The aerated waters manufactured are sold to different wholesale dealers namely, Vidharbha Bottlers, Nagpur, Mukesh Campa Services, Nagpur, Amba Traders, Gon-dia, Bhole Drinks, Chindwara, Chandiram Sadhuram, Betul, and Shantiganga Soft Drinks, Bilaspur. Since the wholesale dealers invariably delayed the return of empty bottles and wooden crates to the appellants' factory the appellants recovered from the wholesale dealers an amount of Rs. 5/- per crate as container hire charges besides the ex-factory price charged for the sale of aerated waters. There is also an understanding between the appellants and the wholesale dealers to the effect that the dealers have to lift a particular number of cra...
Tag this Judgment!Collector Of C. Ex. Vs. Wood'S Glamour
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC361
1. The above Appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, with reference to the exemption availed under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 01-03-1986 by manufacturers of T.V. Cabinets. The issue involved in all the above 30 Appeals being identical, they have been taken up for decision for issue of a common order.2. Arguing the case for the Appellant, Shri M.S. Arora, Ld. Junior Departmental Representative drew attention to the Notification No.175/86-C.E:, dated 01-03-1986 as amended by Notification No.223/87-C.E., dated 22-09-1987, Explanation-VIII, and stated that the brand name of the T.V. Manufacturers, M/s. Konark was affixed to the T.V. Cabinets manufactured by the Respondents and these Cabinets were meant for the T.V. Sets having the brand name "Konark" Rohini Delux, and, therefore, came within the ambit of the definition under Explanation-VIII and were not eligible for the exemption accorded to small-scale un...
Tag this Judgment!Rubicon Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT207TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the common impugned Order C. No.V/16A/15/2/84-Cx. Adj. dated 26-2-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin.2. The first appellant Rubicon is a Partnership firm of which the appellants Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the partners while the appellant No. 5 was an employee of the firm. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tread rubber, falling under the then Central Excise Tariff Item No.16(2) for the period covered under the impugned order. The Collector who adjudicated the proceedings originally passed an order dated 20-11-1986 demanding the duty amounting to Rs. 21,80,309.59 on the charge that the appellants had manufactured and removed goods for the period 1-4-1981 to 13-2-1984 contravening the provisions of excise law and accordingly penalties were also imposed on firm as well as on partners in addition to imposition of redemption fine. When the order was questioned by the appellants before the Tribunal on the point of denial of ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Escorts Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC268
1. The Appeal filed by the Revenue is regarding the classification of the "Ultrasonic Cleaning Machines". The Order of the Collector (Appeals) in allowing the Respondents' appeal by classifying the machines under Heading 84.59(2) has been contested.2. The appellants contend that the machines are "Ultrasonic Cleaning (Washing) Machines" which consist of a number of tanks, heating tank with heater and drying system, exhaust piping equipment, chip filter and baskets. The system is designed to clean components with different washing media in tanks, also under heating and in some tank the cleaning is performed by ultrasonic waves to enable vigorous and proper cleaning. That the various components of the automobile engine are cleaned properly so that the final engine will work smoothly. The Collector (Appeals) has held that the cleaning process is an integral part of the manufacturing process of motor-cycle engine parts, and therefore, the machines are considered as production line machine ...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Universal Steel Alloys Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD540(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)I, New Delhi on the following grounds : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing to allow interest under Section 244(A). 2. In any case, the issue being capable of two interpretations there was no mistake apparent from records which could be rectified under Section 154.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee company was liable to pay advance-tax for the assessment year 1982-83 in three equal instalments on 15th June, 15th September and 15th December, 1981. The assessee, however, made the payments as under : Assessment was completed on the basis of which a refund of Rs. 20,903 was granted to the assessee. Application under Section 154/214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was filed on 20th August, 1985 requesting the Assessing Officer to grant interest under Section 214. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 8th November, 1985 held that the payment...
Tag this Judgment!Videotronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC235
1. The facts relevant for a decision in this matter are that in April 1983 the appellants imported video cassette tapes under two bills of entry. They declared a total value of Rs. 87,338/- (30 HK$ per cassette). After some enquiries and due process Customs raised the assessable value of the goods to 57 HK$ fixing the total assessable value at Rs. 1,36,052.16 paise GIF. The goods were confiscated and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- was levied as also a penalty of Rs. 15,000/-.Hence this appeal.2. Shri Sridharan, the learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained because the so called price list of Erbis Engineering Company Ltd. Japan (Erbis price list for short) was not shown to the appellants in spite of a request being made. The learned Advocate argued that a copy of the price list as filed by the Revenue on 25-10-1990 before this Tribunal cannot be used against the appellants because it is an "edited" list not showing the addressee and in any event the appellants sho...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Singh Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi178; ILR1991Delhi495
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated May 5, 1986, in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1983 whereby by said suit instituted by respondent No. I against the appellant and respondent No. 2 for specific performance of the agreement for sale of house bearing No. 313 Ward No. XVI, built on a leasehold plot, comprised in Khasra No. 180/37/36/33, admeasuring 222 sq. yards, situate in Block AC, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property) was decreed in favor of respondent No. 1.2. The salient facts giving rise to this appeal are:- The property was purchased for a sum of Rs.36,200/- by respondent No. 2, a displaced person, on April 7, 1959 in a public auction held by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him under S. 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')....
Tag this Judgment!