Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Subramanyan and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(52)LC387Tri(Delhi)

1. The Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara had filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the Order dt. 7.2.1986, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. M/s. Subrahmanyan and Company (the respondents) were engaged in the manufacture of Mono Block pre-stressed concrete sleepers, falling under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (the old Tariff). In the manufacture of such sleepers, they were using malleable cast iron inserts, which were supplied to them free of cost by the Railways, for whom the said sleepers were being manufactured. The respondents were availing of the exemption under Notification No. 120/75-CE dt. 30.4:1975, under which the Central Excise duty in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the invoice price, subject to certain conditions, was exempted. The respondents had not taken into account the cost of free supplies of malleable cast iron inserts, while charging the price from the Railways, for...

Faqljir Chand Vs. Ved Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 53(1994)DLT432

Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated 4th August, 1992 whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14C of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act 1988(hereinaftcr referred to as the Act) was dismissed. (2) The brief facts which led to the filing of the petition are as follows: The petitioner let out the premises consisting one bed room, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, one Wc with attached bath room and front Verandah in property No. 145 Gagan Vihar, Delhi on 14th October, 1985. The petitioner being a Central Government employee tenanted the premises to the respondent since he did not require them while he was in service. The petitioner retired from Government service on 2nd October, 1989. Since petitioner's own premises were not vacant and tenanted to the respondent he shifted to premises No. H-141.N.A. Colony, New Delhi, an official accommodation allotted to his friend Shri R.K. Sin...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Om Parkesh Garg

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 17th October, 1993. Briefly the facts of the case are that the telephone No. 7180031 had been installed in the premises of the complainant-respondent and it remained installed till July, 1993. This telephone number was closed in March, 93 and he was allotted another telephone No. 7249618. He was given a bill showing arrears for the period from 20th November, 1991 to 30-6-93 for telephone No. 7249618. In view of that bill his telephone was disconnected,. Consequently, he filed a complaint and prayed for interim injunction. 2. The learned District Forum granted ad-interim injunction subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000/-, in favour of the complainant and directed the respondent to restore the telephone within 3 days of the payment of the amount. He deposited the said amount on 8th October, 1993. The department has come up in appeal against the ad-interim injunction order. 3. It is co...

Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT894TriDel

1. Both these appeals arises from the order-in-original dated 19-12-90 passed by Collector of Customs (Judicial), Bombay and as they pertain to the same issue they are taken up together for disposal as per law.The question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is the grant of the benefit of S. No. 19 of Notification No. 489/86-Cus., dated 18-12-86 as amended by Notification No. 283/89, which reads as under : "Composite Felt Making Plant including Coating/Garnetting/Needle Looms" In respect of the imported consignment of 40 packages (35 cases and 5 unpacked packages) declared to contain one number Paper Maker's Felt Needle Punching Machine Type NL/18/I1. The terms of the notification in question are that it exempts the goods specified in the schedule appended thereto falling within the Chapters 84, 85 or 90 of the first schedule and Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act respectively subject to certain conditions which inter alia are that the importers are Actual Users (Industr...

Collr. of Customs Vs. Hydranautics Membrane (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC270Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-12-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 4858 dated 16-11-1991 for the clearance of a consignment of Membrane Support Substrates, Product Carrier and Casting Powder. In the Bill of Entry the appellants declared the goods as classifiable under Tariff Heading 8421.99 as parts of R.O. Membrane System (Water Treatment Plants). The appellants also claimed the assessment of the goods at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.155/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986. The Assistant Collector observed that the goods in question being in running length could not be treated as 'parts' for R.O. Membrane System. He heid that goods being 'raw materials' were not eligible for exemption under Notification No.155/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who allowed the appeal on the...

K.G. Mal and anr. Vs. Sham Bihari Mal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)521; 53(1994)DLT428; 1994(28)DRJ314

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Mr. K.G.Mal and Anr., by this Revision petition, have assailed the order of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 3.10.92, whereby his application seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed inter alias on the ground that beside being belated, if allowed it would amount to withdrawing the admission already made.(2) In short, the facts of the case are that Mr.Shyam Bihari Mal, respondent herein filed a suit claiming possession of the ground floor portion of property No. B-172, East of Kailash,New Delhi, against the present petitioners.In para 18 of fhe plaint the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction was assessed at Rs.75,000.00 . The petitioners (defendants before the trial court) filed a written statement. In reply to para 18 of the plaint it was stated that the said para being legal needs no reply. Subsequent to the filing of the said written statement, the defendants moved an application seeking amendment of the writ...

Farooq Sheikh Durrani Vs. Lt. Governor and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)445; 53(1994)DLT494; 1994(28)DRJ310; 1994RLR140

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Of late there has been a burgeoning growth of case law under Article 22(5) of the Constitution relating to the disposal of the representations made by detenus. However, every case being an island unto itself, the case in hand too presents its own hues.(2) Let me first explore, in Andy Kaufmanish detail, the history of this case.(3) The petitioner is a Pakistani national. He came to India on November 5, 1992. Six days thereafter while he was about to leave for Karachi from the Indira Gandhi International Airport he was intercepted by the Custom Officials. His search yielded Indian Currency amounting to Rs.10,50,000.00 .This led to his arrest and the recording of his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Later, he was prosecuted and convicted under sections 132 and 135 of the said Act. However, what is relevant for our purposes is that on February 4, 1993 while the above-noted prosecution was still pending, the petitioner was served with an order of de...

J.G. Engineers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC609Tri(Delhi)

1. Since a common issue is involved, therefore, a common order is being passed.2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of power driven pumps. For that purpose they also manufacture the parts of power driven pumps for being captively used in their final product, as aforesaid. It is not disputed that the appellants herein are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 so far as the clearances of power driven pumps are concerned. The department, however, wants to levy duty on the value of production of parts of power driven pumps.3. Appellants' learned advocate, Shri Alok Arora, submits that this is not permissible for the department to do so in view of Explanation HI to Notification No. 175/86. For proper appreciation, we reproduce Explanation III to the said notification :- "Explanation III. - Where any specified goods (hereinafter referred to as inputs) are used for further manufacture of specified goods within the factory of production of inputs, the clearances of such inp...

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. M/S. Manjit Properties Private Ltd. and Other ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1995Delhi22

ORDER1. As far back as in the year 1982 the plaintiff Bank had instituted this suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 21,73,825. The defendants were granted leave to appear and defend the suit and as many as seven issues were framed which read as under:'1. Was the account in dispute opened by defendant No. 1 under fraud as alleged in the written statement? 2. Did the defendant No. 1 not receive the amount from the plaintiff-bank as alleged in the plaint? If so to what effect? 3. Did defendants sign the documents of the transaction in dispute when they were blank? If so to what effect? 4. If issues Nos. 1 to 3 arc not proved, what is the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendants? 5. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties? 6. Has the suit been instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff-bank and the plaint signed and verified by such person? 7. Relief.' 2. As would be borne out from the issues so fra...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 53(1994)DLT606; [1994]208ITR704(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law for the assessment year 1975-76 have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the order of the Income-tax Officer dated July 28, 1978, which had merged into the appellate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated February 28, 1979, and of the Tribunal dated May 1, 1980 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,26,700 should not be excluded for purposes of capital employed under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules for purposes of deduction allowable under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975...