Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 3 of about 124 results (0.031 seconds)Vikrant International Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT750TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by order-in-appeal No. 1279-CE/DLH/90, dated 8-1-1991 upholding the order of Assistant Collector under which the appellants were denied the deemed modvat credit facility with effect from 3-11-1987.2. Ld. Advocate of the appellant Shri Kamal Jeet Singh admitted that the order was issued by Central Government on 2-11-1987 but they came to know about this only in January, 1988 and in fact the Trade Notice in this regard, as the Show Cause Notice will show, was issued on 3-12-1987. He submitted that Show Cause Notice relies on this Trade Notice for denying the deemed modvat credit facility already taken by them during November and December. He submitted that the exact effective date of notification would be only the date notification is made known by the Govt. He submitted that in such cases, the facility should have been allowed upto the date they came to know of withdrawal of this facility through order dated 2-11-1987 which was issued only in January, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Jaypee Forge Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT618TriDel
1. Jaypee Forge Ltd., C-19/5, MIDC Taloja District Raigad has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. A stay application-cum-early hearing application was also filed. Shri Gautam B. Doshi, the learned Chartered Accountant with Shri Jitender Singh, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Doshi, the learned Chartered Accountant pleaded that the order as to the creation of demand dated 6th April, 1994 is itself an appealable order to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and the appellant has duly filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) as well as an application for stay and the present stay application before the 'Tribunal is not maintainable. He makes a prayer for grant of permission for the withdrawal of the prayer for the grant stay, but for out of turn hearing he pleaded that since there is recurring effect and demands are being created from time to time and th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Excise Vs. Orissa Extrusion Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC611Tri(Delhi)
1. In both these appeals, common issue of facts and law is involved and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. The Asstt. Collector by his order-in-original classified Aluminium Dross and Skimmings under sub-heading 7602.00 of the CET, 1985 on the ground that with the expunging of note l(i) of CH. 76 w.e.f. 1-3-1988, dross and skimmings of Aluminium are no longer excludible from CH. 76. According to the ld.Asstt. Collector, as the exclusion clause of dross and skimmings was no more there, the said goods are required to be classified on merits depending upon whether they are metal waste scrap or not. He has held that since the dross and skimmings of aluminium are the product arising in the process of manufacture of metals or working of the metal by the appellant, those are rightly classifiable under sub-heading 7602.00.However, the Collector (Appeals) on appeal by the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Jayashree Insulators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT306TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Calcutta has filed two appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.Simultaneously, he has also filed two stay applications. Shri B.K.Singh, the learned SDR, has appeared on behalf of the applicant-Collector. He pleaded for the exercise of inherent powers.The only ground stated by appellant was that the respondent had imported fax machine having the additional facility of telephone answering system and that since the notification extends benefit of concessional rate of duty to the equipment if imported separately. As such Shri B.K. Singh pleaded that the concession of the same benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. cannot be extended. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents.2. We have heard the learned SDR and have also gone through the records. The mere fact that the fax machine has got an additional function of telephone answering system cannot take away with the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rotomac Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT701TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 20-11-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment of Glass Banding Tapes against Bill of Entry No. 1037, dated 18-9-1989. The Assistant Collector held that the imported goods being fabrics impregnated with "semi-cured polyester resin" were not eligible for the concessional rate of c.v. duty at 20% in terms of Notification 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. On these grounds he confirmed the demand for Rs. 46,690.24. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order held that the concessional rate of c.v. duty at 20% under Notification No. 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 was applicable only to goods falling under Heading 7014.00 of the C.E.T.which are other than the goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastic or varnish. He also held th...
Tag this Judgment!F. Pudumjee and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC526Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a stay application filed by the appellants with reference to the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, dated 28-5-1992.2. The Learned Counsel stated that in this case the principle of natural justice have not been duly observed in as much as the show cause notice dated 12-1-1987 does not disclose the material or the reasons on which the charges are based.3. It merely states that they will not be entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 25/84 as amended by Notification No. 138/86 for their product paper, as the M/s. Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and M/s. F. Pudumjee and Co. are two factories (units) of pne and the same manufacturer and the total clearance of the both the units taken together exceeds the prescribed limits of clearances under the above notifications.4. The order-in-original dated 28-2-1989 was passed by the Assistant Collector, Pune.5. In this order the Assistant Collector has based his finding on the order of the Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Tourism and Transportation Vs. Ajay Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi197; 56(1994)DLT558; 1994(31)DRJ182; (1995)110PLR75
ORDER1. Having regard to Browning's know on verbal economy -- 'less is more' -let me, in few words, first touch the facts and then the points in issue.2. In response to the suit for eviction instituted by the respondent the appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the Act) alleging the existence of an Arbitration agreement. Since the application was opposed, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to hear arguments and by the order under appeal he not only dismissed it on the ground that the appellant had participated in the proceedings but held further:'The appointment (of the arbitrator) if somade is, thereforee, declared null and void... .3. We all know the conditions which are required to be fulfillled for exercise the discretionary power of the Court under Section 41 of the Act to order stay of legal proceedings.Let us have a look at them again. They are; (I) There must be a valid and binding arbitration agreement between t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shama Magazine
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Del)338; [1995]213ITR64(Delhi)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 38,994 under section 271(1)(c) read together with the Explanationn to the said section ?' 2. The petitioner filed a return for the year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 declaring a total income of Rs. 7,883. It is unnecessary to refer to various details of the income except to state that the Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 25,000 shown as credited in the name of one Nawab Ahmed. The assessed never produced any evidence in support of his Explanationn that the amount was deposited by the said Nawab Ahmed in spite of several opportunities. The amount was shown as deposited by cash. The said Nawab Ahmed was also not assessed to any ta...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Harbans Singh Vs. Karuna Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ141
Vijender Jain, J. (1) I.A.4280/89 is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of mandatory injunction directing defendant no.2 to hand over the flat bearing No-319,6, Bhikaji Cama Place, Ansal Chamber No. 1I, New Delhi to the plaintiff. Another prayer is to restrain defendant no.2 from handing over the possession of the aforesaid flat to any other person till the disposal of this application. Yet another prayer is to restrain defendant no.4 from handing over the possession of the flat no.404, Lakshmi Bhawan, 72, Nehru Place, New Delhi to defendant no.1 or to anyone else claiming through or under her pending disposal of the suit and further seeking directions directing defendant no.2 to pay monthly rent in respect of flat bearing no.404, Nehru Place, New Delhi to the plaintiff and to deposit arrears of rent received by defendant No.1 in respect of the said flat. Plaintiff is mother-in-law of defendant No.1. Defen...
Tag this Judgment!Textile House Vs. Ganga Ram and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT350; 1994(31)DRJ637
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) I.A. No.8629/93 i.s an application dated 30.9.93 Order 39 Rules 1-2 Cpc seeking an ad interim preventive injunction restraining the defendant from placing any goods stacks or any other item on the wooden shelf or in the window counter or using the same or carrying on its business from the said place in any manner whatsoever. I.A. No-8630/93 of the same date is filed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking a temporary injunction in mandatory form directing the defendant to immediately remove the wooden shelf kept by the defendant so as to enable the plaintiff to carry on its business properly . (2) The parties forming partnerships described as plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively are related with each other. Briefly stated, defendant No.2 and 3 are related as uncles to the three partners of the plaintiff firm. There are business premises situated in the commercial locality of Connaught Place, described as 14, Regal Building popularly known as Tea House. T...
Tag this Judgment!