Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments

Eicher Tractor Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT119TriDel

1. Shri V. Swaniathan, learned Senior Manager of the applications' firm is present. He submits a copy of letter dated 9-8-1994 filed by them before the Registrar, Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal confirming that they had deposited their RG 23A Part II Account for the purpose of complying with the requirement of pre-deposit. This letter of theirs has been endorsed by the departmental officer confirming that the information has been checked with the case file and found to be correct.2. In view of the fact that the amount in question has been deposited, the earlier order of the Bench dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit requires to be recalled. We order accordingly and restore the appeal to its original number....

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT67TriDel

1. Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate for the petitioners M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. states that the demand had arisen on account of disallowance of MODVAT Credit taken by them on their inputs which were being utilised by them in the first instance for the manufacture of shells for Audio Cassettes which were then utilised in the manufacture of Audio Cassettes. Till 16-5-1990 they were clearing audio shells free of duty under Notification 217 of 1986 as they were being utilised captively for the further manufacture of the dutiable product, audio cassettes. After the said date, audio cassettes became exempt from duty and accordingly the benefit of Notification No. 217 of 1986 was not admissible to them. They had, therefore, filed the classification list of audio shells and paid duty thereon by debiting to their RG 23A Part II account. Shri Nambirajan contended strongly that this is not a case where there was no declaration at all filed.They had actually declared the shells i...

D.N. Sethna Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT75TriDel

1. The dispute is in respect of value of the imported car. The appellant imported M/Benz 190-1984 (Brand new) model car and filed a bill of entry for clearance of the said car. The value of the car was determined by the Assistant Collector based upon the manufacturer's invoice without allowing the depreciation on the ground that the car was brand new. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) observed that since the Assistant Collector has granted Rs. 8,500 as damage charges, the car was not new one since the date of registration was also on 9-2-1984 and accordingly, he allowed the depreciation but restricted to two quarter at the rate of 4%. The other claims were disallowed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence this appeal.2. Ms. Khushnama D. Sethna, Daughter of the appellant appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the car was purchased on 9-2-1984 as can be seen from the document of the registration and the car was imported into India on 9-2-1985 and the car was not brand new si...

Tac Cassettes Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT307TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 21-1-1994 levying a duty of Rs. 48,923.32 and penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellants in respect of ribbon filled cassettes manufactured between the period April, 1991 to November, 1991. Shri Gopal Prasad, Ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the proceedings were instituted against the appellants on the ground that the appellants had not filed the necessary declaration nor the company was registered with the Director of Industries in terms of Notification No. 175/86 in respect of the goods in question and the proceedings ultimately culminated in the impugned order.2. The Ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the appellants for the period in question, for the previous year had not exceeded a total clearance of Rs. 15,000 and for the current year in question the clearances were only for Rs. 1.74 lakhs and, therefore, the total clearances for the preceding year and for the c...

Union of India Vs. R.S. Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 57(1995)DLT91; 1995(32)DRJ73; (1995)110PLR10

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.1994 refusing to stay the execution of a decree pursuant to an award made a Rule of the court. This was on the ground that the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC do not apply in view of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Bactchala Balaiah : AIR1985AP52 . What happened in this cash is that an award was passed on 18.6.1993 and a petition for making the award a Rule of the court was filed as S. No. 1584193. In those proceedings, on 21.1.1994 the court recorded an order that Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate, took notice on behalf of the Union of India on that date. If that be so, the period of 30 days for filing, objections would expiry by 20.1.1994. As no objections were filed within 30 days, the court passed an order on, 9.3.1994 making the award a Rule of the court. It appears that the respondent informed the Union of ...

Ram NaraIn Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT314

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. In April/May, 1986, the petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondents for 'Sanitary, water supply and drainage work for 300 Type III Quarters at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi'. The contract has concluded. Disputes have been raised by the petitioner which are sought to be referred for adjudication by arbitration. 3. The existence and validity of arbitration contract incorporated in Clause 25 of the contract is not disputed. 4. The only ground on which the prayer for appointment of Arbitrator has been resisted on behalf of the respondents is by reference to that part of Clause 25 of the contract which provides for 'demand for arbitration being raised by the contractor in writing within 90 days of receiving the information from the Government that the bill was ready for payment, failing which demand, the claim of theContract would be deemed to have been waived and...

Karam Vir Singh Gupta Vs. Viney Kapur

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 7th June, 1994 by which his complaint has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant is a Chartered Accountant (C.A.). He got a generator installed in his office. It is alleged that on April, 1992 he engaged O.P. to fit charge-overswitch with other fittings on the generator, which he agreed to do for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. The O.P. was paid Rs. 1,000/-, partly in cash and partly by a cheque. He installed the charge-over-switch but it went out of order after a short time. It is pleaded that inspite of repeated requests, he did not remove the defect. Consequently, the complainant got another chargeover-switch installed from M/s. Milan Electronics at a cost of Rs. 670/-. It is alleged by him that since the O.P. installed defective change-overswitch, he was entitled to get the amount of Rs. 670/- from him. 3. The complaint was contested by the ...

S.M. Bhatia Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1187; 56(1994)DLT732; 1994(31)DRJ562

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) Petitioner who is employed in the 1st respondent organisation, which is a statutory body, seeks the relief of promotion as Director. The eligibility for promotion is 5 years' experience as Joint Director/System Scientist C. This requirement could be relaxed as per Regulation 12. Accordingly, the Executive Committee relaxed the eligibility criteria from 5 years to 4 years in the post of Joint Director, provided the candidate has put in, either 18 or more years of total service etc. This relaxation was communicated as per office note dated 7.11.1988. Accordingly, petitioner was called for interview/ discussions, since, petitioner was eligible for promotion. In all 65 candidates participated in the selection process. The Standing Committee recommended the names of all 65 candidates for promotion. It is necessary to note here, promotion does not depend upon availability of any vacant post, but, it is in the nature of a benefit conferred to the eligible person on...

Ajit Kr. Chadha Vs. Chaman Lal Ghai and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ585

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) The tenant of the premises has filed this petition challenging the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The first respondent is the landlord. (2) According to the landlord the tenant had acquired vacant possession of another residence and thereforee he is liable to be evicted under Section 14(1)(h) wherein a tenant could be evicted if he has acquired vacant possession, or been allotted, a residence. It is stated that the wife of the petitioner acquired possession of certain premises under an agreement of sale and thereforee the petitioner/tenant being the husband could be evicted under section 14(l)(h) from the premises belonging to the first respondent which the petitioner has been enjoying as a tenant. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner is in possession of atleast one room under the aforesaid agreement of sale and the sufficiency of the alternative accommodation obtained by the tenant need not be...

Pushpa Gupta Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Engineers India Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)63; 56(1994)DLT735; 1994(31)DRJ691; (1995)ILLJ1023Del

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) The petitioner questions the order of her removal from service consequent upon a disciplinary enquiry. (2) The petitioner was serving as a Private Secretary in the Engineers India Limited (hereinafter referred as 'respondent company' for the sake of convenience). It is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India. Petitioner joined as a typist in December 1965 in the pay scale of Rs.130- 300. She was promoted as a steno- typist in September 1970 and was further promoted as a stenographer in January 1973. In January 1982 she was promoted as a Private Secretary. According to the petitioner on 19.5.1989 she went to see a friend, Mrs. Kapahi in the Administrative Wing of the company and at that time she was manhandled and insulted by one M.M.Lal, who was the Deputy General Manager (Administration), near the entrance of the 4th floor. Petitioner protested and a few representatives of the Union came to her rescue and demanded Explanationn from the said o...