Delhi Court July 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 5 of about 91 results (0.019 seconds)N.C. Bhalla and ors. Vs. R.C. Bhalla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR395(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT329
Leila Seth, J.(1) A preliminary objection has been raised that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. (2) The Impugned order dated 5th June, 1986 was passed by the learned 'Single Judge on an application filed under section 41(b) read with the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant filed this appeal as also a Special Leave petition against the impugned order. We are informed that the Special Leave petition is still pending in the Supreme Court. (3) 'MS. Anand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision of this Court in Mls Banwari Lal Radhey Mohan.The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., : AIR1983Delhi402 in support of the preliminary objection. (4) Mr. Koura, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that the appeal is maintainable under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act and Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Bhushan Khocana @ Wakil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC452Tri(Delhi)
1. On 26th August, 1989, the officers of Barasat Customs Division, Calcutta, recovered and seized 21 video cassette players and one video cassette recorder of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 2,30,000/- under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 from the petitioner, which he was attempting to transport the same from Calcutta to Saharanpur, for sale, on the reasonable belief that the said goods were illegally imported into India in violation of Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner and Chandrika Singh, the owner-cum-driver of the taxi bearing No. WBT 7164 were arrested and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, on the next day. During the follow-up action, the residential as well as business premises of the petitioner were searched resulting in no recovery.2. On the basis of these material facts, Shri Mahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, passed the impugned order of detention of the petitioner,...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sanchem Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC140Tri(Delhi)
1. The allegation against the respondents herein is that the respondents, who are manufacturers of goods falling under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, obtained benzene under nil rate or concessional rate of duty under Notification 276/67 or 35/73 and sent it to another factory for conversion by esterification into Di-ethyl Oxalate which is an intermediate product in the manufacture of the final product Sodium Oxal Acetic Ester manufactured by them, thereby misusing the concessional facilities available under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. The goods instead of being utilised/consumed in their own factory had been removed to another factory as their esterification plant was out of order during the relevant period, and such removal was without following proper procedure as laid down in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. The further charge against the respondents was that they had not obtained permission of the Collector of Central Excise as required under Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT619TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.85/86 (M) dated 16-4-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The respondents remained absent at the time of hearing, but, however, requested to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing Shri S. Chakraborty, learned J.D.R. for the appellant.3. The question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether demand can be raised or not for the period of six months prior to the issue of Show Cause Notice for reclassification.4. Facts of the case, in brief, relating to the dispute are that respondents M/s. B.H.E.L. manufacture Acetylene Gas for captive consumption within their factory. While filing the classification list for approval they declared that the Gas manufactured by them was of impure nature and would not conform to the ISI Specification.Accordingly, this classification list was approved by the Department classifying the Acet...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indore Bottling Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT846TriDel
1. The question to be decided in this case is whether the respondents were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. They filed an application claiming refund of duty of Rs. 13,220.20 in respect of aerated water cleared by the respondents during the period 1-4-1980 to 15-4-1980. They manufactured aerated water on behalf of the M/s. Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay under franchise agreement. Their claim was that they are independent manufacturer and hence the benefit of exemption notification was available to them. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who did not accept the contention of the respondents. While disposing of the appeal filed by the respondents against the Assistant Collector's order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order and allowed the appeal. He held that the benefit of the notification was admissible to the respondents herein.2. During the hearing b...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Limited Vs. Sai Autos and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas483(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT446; 1990RLR430
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at H-2, Connaught Circus New Delhi, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 3,38,916.00 against four defendants. (2) Defendant No. 1 is M/s. Sai Autos; defendant No. 2 is Mr. K. Neela Mohan Rao, partner and proprietor of M/s. Sai Autos. Defendant No 3 Sri Y. Venkateswar Rao is also partner and proprietor of M/s. Sai Autos and defendant No. 4 is Mr. Bollam Venkatramaiah. ' (3) M/S. Sai Auto are stated to have been dealers at Karim Nagar (Andhra Pradesh) for the sale of Ford Tractors made by the plaintiff company. (4) It is the case of the plaintiff company that Mr. Charanjit Singh who has signed and verified the plaint, is the Principal Officer as also the Vice-President arid Secretary of the plaintiff company, and.is authorised to sign verify the plaint and file the. present suit and to prosecute the same on behalf of the plaintiff company in 'terms of the General Power of...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Litho Press Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC424Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The said appeal on Form No. C.A. 3 was received in the Registry on the 10th day of May, 1985. In col. No. 3 the date of communication has been mentioned as 31-12-1984. The matter had come up for hearing before the Bench on 9-7-1990 and the Bench had pointed out that the appeal appears to be apparently hit by limitation and on appellants' request the matter was adjourned.2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the appellants pleaded that bonafidely the appellants had filed the appeal before the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the form of a letter on 11-3-1985, i.e. within 3 months from the date of the communication of the order and the appeal fee was also paid vide Draft No. 139372 dated 23-2-1985 drawn on State Bank of India, New Delhi. He further pleaded that on receiving a communication from the Registry to the effect that the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupinder Singh and Joginder Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC507Tri(Delhi)
1. Both these stay applications arise out of appeals which are directed against the same order and facts are inter-related and common. We have heard them together and dispose them of by this common order.2. Sh. K. K. Chopra, Ld. Consultant arguing for Sh. Bhupinder Singh submitted that there is no inquiry regarding consignor and the appellant is simply a transport operator. It is only the consignor who can throw any light on the legal character of the goods in question, and in absence of any inquiry thereof, it cannot be conclusively said that the goods, in question, were contraband. The Ld. S.D.R. argued that the goods were sent by the brother of the appellant and they were in collusion with each other and so the appellant knew about the contraband nature of the goods.3. We have carefully perused the impugned order and it appears that there is no inquiry on this point and the appellant has prima facie an arguable case. As far as another appellant, Sh. Joginder Singh is concerned, he ...
Tag this Judgment!New Indiana Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)LC510Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Additional Collector of Customs, Chandigarh dated 1-2-1988.2. At the outset a question arose whether the appellants had complied with the provisions of Section 129E.3. The learned Counsel stated that in the impugned order a penalty was imposed, but a conditional stay was granted by the Tribunal.Accordingly they have already deposited Rs. 5000/ (out of Rs. 8000/- imposed) and they were covered by the stay order in respect of the remaining amount of Rs. 3000/-.4. However when the Ld. Counsel asked to show the stay order the learned Counsel produced an order No. S/166/86-NRB, dated 4-9-1986.5. It was however observed by the Bench that this order does not relate to the present appeal which arises out of Order-in-Original No.3/S/88/Denovo dated 1-2-1988.In response to a question of Bench the learned Counsel admitted that this stay order was passed on 4-9-1986 prior to the Tribunals final order No. A/301/87-NRB dated 25-6-1987; whe...
Tag this Judgment!Pidilite Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT577TriDel
1. These 48 appeals involve a common question relating to the rate of additional duty of customs leviable on Poly Vinyl Alcohol (PVA for short). It is the appellants' case that the Central Excise Notification No. 185/83 should be applied and the rate fixed at 10%. The Revenue on the other hand decided that the Notification cannot be applied, and the statutory rate of duty which is higher than the concessional rate should be applied. When the matters came up Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Advocate for the appellants requested for an adjournment of the matters on the ground that an appeal involving an identical point was pending decision in the Supreme Court who ordered to post the appeal in March 1991. The learned Advocate submitted that in all these matters duty as levied by Customs was paid and refund applications are pending.Therefore, there is no prejudice to Revenue if the adjournment is granted. Shri Jayant Bhushan submitted that multiplicity of the appeals should be avoided an...
Tag this Judgment!