Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 9 of about 144 results (0.021 seconds)Union of India Vs. Sohan Singh Sethi and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)268; 1995(1)ARBLR153(Delhi); 1995(32)DRJ99
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) These are the proceedings under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (hereinafter Act, for short) for making an award a rule of the court. Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner has not preferred any objections. The learned counsel for the respondent has insisted on issues being, framed and case being posted for recording evidence, may be by way of affidavits, without which he submits that the objections cannot be decided. (2) The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Section 33 of the Act, which reads as under :- Section 33. Arbitration agreement or award to be contested by application Any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him desiring to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award or to have the effect of either determined shall apply to the court and the court shall decide the question on affidavits. Provided that where the court deems it just and expedient,...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Departmental Store Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1; 57(1995)DLT69; 1995(32)DRJ57
(1) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Cpc seeking injunction to restrain the defendant Municipal Corporation of Delhi from demolishing/sealing property bearing No.M-3, Ndse Part-II, New Delhi.(2) According to the plaintiff the completion certificate in relation to the building was issued to the plaintiff on 22.7.1987. The plaintiff has been leasing out the property to various tenants and the building has been assessed to house tax.(3) MR.R-K-ANAND learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff argued that on 24.11.94 officials of the defendant Mcd came at the spot and conveyed that they will demolish and seal the property in dispute on 29.11.1994. Mr. Anand has contended that no show cause notice either for demolishing the property or for sealing the property was given by the MCD. In the alternative he has argued that in any event of the matter the notice was not properly served on the plaintiff as there was no provision for pasting the notic...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi Foods and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT584TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of various types of yeast, including a pharma yeast. They have filed their classification list No. 1/86-87 effective from 4-8-1986 claiming exemption under Notification No. 234/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 in respect of Dried yeast (BPC 73) or pharma yeast. On receipt, a Show Cause Notice was issued to them to show cause as to why their claim for total exemption under Notification No. 234/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 to Dried yeast (BPC-73) or pharma yeast falling under sub-heading No. 2102.10 be not rejected for the reasons that the goods falling under Chapter 21 are not brought under the purview of the aforesaid notification and why their classification list be not approved accordingly. The appellants hotly contested the Show Cause Notice. After usual adjudication proceedings the Assistant Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Astro Auto Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT239TriDel
1. Condonation of Delay Application has been filed by the Department seeking to condone the delay which ensued consequent on the Department filing supplementary appeals in the form of lines adopted to suit with the requirement. The delay is condoned.2. Appeal Nos. E/1550/91-B1 with suppl. E/H80/94-B1, E/1551/91-B1 and E/1481/94-B1 have been filed by the Department against a common order of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 20-11-1990. Appeal No. E/1700/91-B1 has been filed by M/s. Allied Industries against the impugned order of Addl. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 18-1-1991.3. Since the above appeals involve identical issue relating to scope and interpretation of 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 particularly with reference to use of alleged brand name in terms of Para 7 which is as under :- "The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of anot...
Tag this Judgment!Venus Cement Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT82TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon the appellants in terms of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2-9-1986, the Central Excise Preventive Officers of Meerut Collectorate visited the premises of the appellants and found two Note books containing private accounts of removal of cement. On scrutiny of these Note books, the department came to the conclusion that 2,400 bags of cement each weighing 50 kgs. had been removed without payment of duty and without accountal in the statutory records. The officers also noticed that the appellants had received 10,000 HDPE bags from M/s. Mahalaxmi Polypack (P) Ltd., Muzafarnagar vide Bill No. 1066/87, dated 27-7-1987 while the statutory RG 9 register did not contain any entry of receipt. From the above, it was inferred that the appellants had manufactured and clandestinely removed 10,000 bags of cement without payme...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Information Technology Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT222TriDel
1. This is an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 63,65,256.27 and also a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh imposed on the applicants, herein, by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore in his impugned order dated 30-12-1988 on the ground that the assessable value of the computers manufactured by the applicants, herein, falling under erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 33DD is to be determined correctly by adding the value of peripherals.2. Shri Dushyant Dave, ld. Counsel with Ms. Amrita Mitra, ld. Counsel appeared for the applicants. It was submitted that to begin with, after they commenced manufacture of computers, the applicants had declared the value of the computers including therein the value of bought out peripherals. In June, 1984, by letter dated 28-1-1984, the applicants told the Superintendent of Central Excise that they had included the value of peripherals by mistake and filed a fresh classification list and also sought clarification in the matter. They wa...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Vishnu Bhagwan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(56)LC462Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi is directed against the order dated 10.8.1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The facts, briefly, are as follows: Shri Vishnu Bhagwan (hereinafter termed as importer) filed Bill of Entry No. 101884 dated 15.4.1994 through his CHA M/s. Ashoka International, New Delhi for the clearance of one used Mercedez Benz Car of Model 200 E of 1990 make. The importer submitted invoice No. 11/686914 dated 27.11.1990 of the manufacturer M/s. Mercedez Benz, AG Germany. The Bill of Entry was accordingly assessed to duty after disallowing diplomatic discount @ 15% and deducting the local charges like transportation and insurance as mentioned in the invoice. The net FOB value thus worked out to Dm 42005 on which a depreciation of 42% was given from date of registration till date of Bill of lading i.e. from 26.11.1990 to 2.3.1994. After adding freight and insurance charges as applicable, the assessable value of the car w...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC373Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 19-1-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of Television receiving sets and parts thereof falling under Headings 8528.00 and 8529.00 of the Central Excise Tariff were served with a show cause notice dated 22-1-1992 alleging that they had classified 'Sub-assemblies' of Colour TV. Sets meant for being supplied to their customers on payment of duty under Heading 8529.00 whereas they had been clearing similar sub-assemblies meant for captive consumption for the manufacture of Black and White TV. sets without filing any classification list and without payment of duty. On the ground that in respect of the sub-assemblies the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 was not available on account of the final product viz. Black and White TV. sets being exempt from payment of duty, the appellants were asked to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 2,42,608/- on 905 pcs. of sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Nitul Data System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arrow Electronics
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas747(Delhi)
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. Admitted. This company appeal is preferred by Nitul Data System (P.) Ltd. against the order of the learned single judge dated March 2, 1994 (see Arrow Electronics International Inc. v. Nitul Data System P. Ltd. [1997] 88 Comp Cas 234 (Del) passed in Company Petition No. 168 of 1991. 2. The respondent-company (incorporated in the U.S.A.) filed the company petition against the appellant for winding up on the ground that the appellant, in spite of statutory notices, failed to pay off the amounts due to the respondent-company. The learned single judge, in his order dated March 2, 1994, came to the conclusion that the contentions raised by the appellant were not tenable, that the value of goods agreed to be paid was U.S. $ 16,992.21, that the appellant failed to pay the same and even the admitted amount of U.S. $ 11,634.79 was not paid. thereforee, the learned judge passed an order 'admitting' the company petition and directed citations to be published in the newsp...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Kanoo Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)345; 59(1995)DLT1
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, claiming to be the sole proprietor of East End Arms Company, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari for issuing a direction of the respondents to transfer 240 proof tested pieces of single barrel guns of which 198 pieces were proof tested and passed by the Inspectorate of Small Arms, Ichapur, in favor of the petitioner. Petitioner says as per provisions of the Arms Act and the Rules it was he who in 1981 deposited these 240 guns with the Ordnance Factory, Ichapur, for inspection but respondents were not passing orders for transferring these guns to him. (2) Petitioner contends that he was the sole proprietor of East End Arms Company, Manipur, and that his younger brother Bishon Lal Kanoo, who migrated from Pakistan, was inducted by the petitioner as Manager of the firm. Some how, the petitioner says Bishon Lal Kanoo styled himself as partner of the firm and so also Parimal Kanoo, another brother of t...
Tag this Judgment!