Delhi Court April 1994 Judgments

Mansa Ram Vs. Sohan Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)179; 54(1994)DLT434

Mr. R.L. Gupta, J. 1. This regular second appeal had been filed by Shri Mansa Ram (since dead) against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1973 of a learned Addl. District judge, Delhi by which he reversed the judgment and decree dated 16.5.1968 of a learned Sub Judge, 1st Class in suit No. 98/ 66. The Sub Judge had granted a decree for possession of the suit premises as described in the site plan Ex. PW5/T, which was reversed by the first Appellate Court. During the pendency of this appeal for more than two decades all the three parties died and their legal representatives were brought on record.2. The suit initially filed is based on the allegations that the plaintiff was a refugee from Lahore, and came to India in 1948, and took possession of Nazul plotNo. 62 measuring 325 sq.yards belonging to Delhi Improvement Trust (since vested in Delhi Development Authority) situated in Mohalla Ara Kashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. He constructed four rooms, bath room, kitchen and a Verandah. He cla...

Manohar Lal Batra Vs. the Vice Chairman, D.D.A. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant had two plots-one commercial and the other residential, both measuring about 650 sq. yards in Delhi. They were acquired by the L and B Department, Delhi Administration, respondent. He was informed by the respondents that he was entitled to allotment of an alternative developed plot on lease hold basis measuring 250 sq. yards, in the DDAs Schemes in the East Zone. However, instead of allotting a plot measuring 250 sq. yards, the DDA offered him a flat of 150 to 200 sq. yards which he declined to accept. The DDA then asked the complainant to wait till a big plot was available. They also asked him to deposit Rs. 3,000/- as earnest money which he deposited. 2. It is pleaded that though the respondents had assured him that 250 sq. yards plot would be allotted, yet a plot measuring 126 sq. yards was allotted to him in 1985, Again he did not accept the plot and informed the DDA accordingly. The DDA in November 85 asked him ...

Modi Paint and Varnish Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT879TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-9-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Ghaziabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paints, varnishes and other products classifiable under Chapter 32 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.'Aluminium Paint' manufactured by the appellants has two constituents viz. aluminium paste and medium. Since Aluminium Paste and Medium are required to be mixed only at the time of use, there has been a long standing trade practice to pack aluminium paste and liquid medium in separate containers and to market the product in a single composite container. This practice is followed only in the case of containers upto the capacity of 4 litres each. However, larger quantities are packed and marketed separately as aluminium Paste and medium. The appellants do not manufacture aluminium paste which is acquired by them from other manufacturers in bulk containers of...

Steel Treaters (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC348Tri(Delhi)

1. In all these three matters, a common question of facts and law is involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore vide his Order-in-Original dated 30-11-1992 has held by a common order that the clearances of the three units have to be clubbed in view of the fact that M/s. Metal Cutters (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Steel Treaters have been created and floated by M/s. Vishnu Forge (Mysore) Ltd. for the purpose of wrongly availing the exemption of two small scale units under Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The learned Collector has held that the goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. Metal Cutters (Mysore) Ltd. during the period from 1-8-1986 to 30-11-1989 and by M/s. Steel Treaters (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. during the period from June, 1989 to July, 1989 are to be treated as goods actually manufactured and cleared by M/s. Vishnu Forge (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. The learned Collector has also held that M/s. Vishnu Forge...

Meghna Exports Vs. Cegat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(72)ELT241(Del)

ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed by two petitioners contesting two sets of orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. In the case of the first petitioner, the Collector of Customs levied a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the first petitioner and a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on each of two partners. Likewise, in the case of the second petitioner also a like amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was levied as penalty against the second petitioner and a further penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on each of its two partners. 2. These orders were appealed against in the CEGAT. Initially an order was passed on 28-5-1993 so far as the first petitioner was concerned to pre-deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs towards penalty amount and its partners were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 25,000 each towards penalty. Likewise, in the case of the second petitioner there was a similar direction to pre-deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs towards penalty on the second petitioner and the two partners were directed to pre-dep...

Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT1019TriDel

1. M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Bangalore, have filed the present appeal, against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 10-7-1989, passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. Under their reference No. CMMD/DCM/IM/0036/86, dated 20-4-1992, the appellants have requested to decide the matter on merits.3. The case was posted for hearing on 29-9-1993. when Shri M.K. Jain, SDR made submissions on behalf of the respondents. The appellants had requested for deciding the matter on merits.4. Shri M.K. Jain, the learned SDR submitted that the appellants had been changing their stand with regard to the Tariff heading under which they seek to classify the imported goods, already cleared out of customs charge. They had taken different stand before the Assistant Collector, Customs (Refund), and the Collector, Customs (Appeals). The case related to the old Central Excise Tariff. As regards the report from the chemical examiner, he stated that the report confirmed the classification adopted by...

Anantpur Textiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT48TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against an Order-in-Original dt. 31-7-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. The appellents are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn falling under Item No. 18A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were charged with for having manufactured and removed 3.685 M.T. and 9.993 M.T. of cotton yarn in 1977 and 1978 respectively without accountal in the R.G. 1 register without determination and payment of excise duty and without observing any Central Excise formality and accordingly the show cause notice was issued for the recovery of the duty amounting to Rs. 5,908.90 (Rs. 1591.92 for the year 1977 and Rs. 4,316.98 for the year 1978) and to impose penalty under Rule 173-Q. The show cause notice was duly answered denying the duty liability. The Collector who adjudicated the proceedings after considering the reply to the show cause notice and submissions held that company could not establish the fact that d...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.S. Silk Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT340TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 18-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. None appeared for the respondents at the time of final hearing.However, we find that there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, learned SDR for the Revenue.3. In the written submissions filed by the respondent, it was submitted that calendering is not a process of manufacture, Since said process was done in other units and other units enjoyed exemption under respective notifications, the same benefit cannot be denied to the respondents under Notification No. 79/82-CE dated 28-2-1982. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has proceeded to decide the issue observing that only point of consideration is whether calendering is excisable process or not. He held that calendering is not manufacturing process and, accordingly, he set ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.S. Avtar Singh and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52ITD547(Delhi)

1. By means of these reference applications, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII, New Delhi seeks reference of the following common question, said to be of law, as arising out of consolidated order dated 2-9-1992 of the Appellate Tribunal in above captioned appeals for assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82:- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that the very basis of re-assessment was no more in existence and CIT(A) was right in cancelling the assessment, thereby allowing investment allowance in respect of new plant & machinery used for construction activities without considering the nature of business of assessee-firm and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT v. N. C. Buddhiraja & Co. Since common question is involved, these reference applications are being disposed of through this consolidated order.2. Facts relating to this case are that the original assessments made in this case wer...

Wazir Chand and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(72)ELT523(Del)

ORDER1. By this writ petition the order dated 23-7-1993 passed by the CEGAT is challenged. The order was communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar, CEGAT on 3-8-1993. By the said order the CEGAT dismissed the application for condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the advocate, who appeared in this case, Shri Manoj Arora had filed an affidavit on 24-12-1992 indicating that he drafted the appeal in November, 1991 and had also obtained a bank draft of Rs. 200/- as fee bearing No. 428575 dated 2-11-1991 from the Canara Bank, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi and that thereafter he had handed over appeal memorandum to the peon for filing the same but the said peon did not file the same. Subsequently, the advocate went to verify the same as notice was not received and then found that the appeal papers were not available in the Registry of the Tribunal. He came to know about these facts and then...