Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 4 of about 124 results (0.019 seconds)Saru Aikoh Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC88Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals from the same appellants involve common issues of valuation. One issue is regarding fixation/application charges in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants. They manufacture a chemical known as bottom pouring compound which is used in the manufacture of steel ingots and steel castings for the purpose of lining the moulds before pouring molten steel into them. In their sales of this compound to Tata Iron and Steel Co., the appellants collected in their invoice the fixing/application charges for providing the service in the form of labour force who are employed to pour the chemical into the moulds. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector held that the application/fixation charges lend marketability to the product and hence ordered that these charges be added to the assessable value of the goods. The Assistant Collector's order was upheld in appeal leading to the present appeal. The other issue is regarding the trade discount offered by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Minny Enterprises Vs. General Manager, I.T.D.C.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)785; 1995(1)ARBLR52(Delhi); 56(1994)DLT402
R. C. Lahoti, J.1. This suit has been registered on an application under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the award dated 31.5.1993 made by a sole arbitrator. 2. In response to a notice inviting tender No. Engg. : E-M/MA/TB/85-86 dated 20.3.1986 issued by the respondents, the petitioners firm submitted its tender which was accepted by the respondent. Contract dated 1.12.1986 was arrived at and entered into between the parties. The work involved instalation, testing and commissioning of MATV system at Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi. Disputes arose between the parties and the same having arisen out of the contract, in accordance with the arbitration clause they were referred to adjudication by a sole arbitrator. The arbitration clause as contained in the General conditions of contract and Standard Contract Forms for Engineering and Architectural Works issued by the respondent contains inter alias that in all case where the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Bharat (Sales) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1132; 56(1994)DLT436; 1994(31)DRJ712; 1995RLR106
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a second appeal preferred under Section 39 of Delhi Rent Control Act. The appeal has been preferred by the landlord- Life Insurance Corporation of India feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.3.78 passed by Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissing a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff/appellant, in reversal of the order of the Additional Rent Controller Delhi, which had directed the respondent to be ejected on the ground of his having unauthorisedly sub-let assigned or parted with possession of portions of the tenancy premises without consent in writing of the landlord/appellant. (2) In the opinion of this Court, the disposal of appeal by the Learned Rent Control Tribunal has not been satisfactory and hence the case deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for hearing and disposal afresh for the reasons to follow. (3) The existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not disputed. The tenancy premises consist of a basement in premise...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Bagchi Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT587
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This suit originates on a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. According to the petitioner, in response to tender No.AGM(SP)MM-15/89 dated 23.8.1989 for trench, laying of cables and other connected jobs for Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi (hereinafter called the Mtnl, for short), the petitioner submitted his tender. It was accepted by therespondent. The contract bearing the same number as the tender was executed between the parties on 1.12.89. The period of contract having expired, it was extended from time to time up to 28.2.91,30.4.91 and 31.5.91. Thereafter there was no extension up to 31.7.91. The petitioner executed the works under the work orders issued by the respondent up to 31.7.91. Consequent to the measurement made of the works executed up to 31.7.91 the petitioner submitted his Bills to the tune of Rs.18,85,535.00 but the respondents made a huge deduction of Rs.11,04,430.00 in violation of the terms of the contract. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Sunrise Electric Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT766TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.Shri B.K. Singh, the learned SDR is present on behalf of the appellant.He pleaded that the product in dispute is HSK. No. 4 Electric Resistance Wire, Ferrous Base, Bright Quality. He pleaded that the Revenue proposes to assess the same under Heading 73.15(2) read with Notification No. 252/82 @ 60% + 35% CVD levied under CET Item No. 26 read with Notification No. 152/77. He pleaded that the appellants claimed assessment as ferrous based Chromium Aluminium alloy wire and not Stainless Steel wire and claimed assessment under Heading No.73.15(1) read with Customs Notification No. 112, dated 16-4-1982 C 35% + 30% and levy of CVD was not disputed. Shri B.K. Singh fairly stated that the matter is fully covered against him in view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1991 (51)...
Tag this Judgment!indus Bio Medica Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT629TriDel
1. Along with their appeals the appellants also filed their respective applications purporting to be under Section 129E of the Customs Act for waiving the mandatory requirement to pre-deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the first appellant and Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on the second appellant. After hearing both sides the Tribunal vide its stay order No. C/78-79/93-B2, dated 26-11-1993 directed the first appellant to deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs within a period of 3 months and also directed the second appellants to deposit Rs. 25,000/- within the said period of 3 months and the case was ordered to be posted for ascertaining the compliance on 10th March, 1994. Admittedly the appellants did not comply with the stay order. Instead they took the matter before the Delhi High Court by filing a writ. The Delhi High Court vide its order dated 25th February, 1994, passed the following order :- "On a consideration of the matter, we find no ground to interfere in the extraordinary writ juri...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Sanghi Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)150; 1995CriLJ3457; 1994(3)Crimes1035; 1994(31)DRJ155; 1995RLR42
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Several appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 1st January, 1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge sentencing the accused under Sections 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal, are recapitulated as under : 3. Ram Krishna Dalmia accused, was the elder brother of Jai Dayal Dalmia and Father-in-law of Shanti Prasad Jain. All the three accused formed a group known as 'Dalmia Jain Group' with Ram Krishna Dalmia, accused as its Principalman. They controlled and had substantial financial interests in the following Companies. 1. Dalmia Cement & Paper Market Co. Ltd. 2. Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd. 3. Allen Berry & Company Ltd. 4. Govan Bros. Ltd. 5. Bharat Bank Ltd. 6. Bharat Insurance Company Limited. 4. In July, 1946 the said Dalmia Jain Group floated a joint stock company known as Dalmia Jain Airways Limited. The Company was incorporated on 9th July, 1946. That Group also floated a Company known ...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit ProteIn Foods Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC399Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 4-2-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of Soya Milk of different variety. They commenced the manufacturing of different varieties of Soya Milk on trial basis from 16-5-1989. In April, 1989 they filed Classification List No. 1/89 effective from 11-4-1989 classifying the Soya Milk under Heading 2202.90 as "non alcoholic beverages" and claimed exemption under the provisions of Notification No. 20/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 under which Soya Milk was exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Since the appellants were under the impression that their products were exempted from duty, they did not file L-4 application for obtaining Central Excise licence. On 14-9-1990, the preventive officers visited the appellants factory and seized 3896 cartons of Soya Milk sold under the brand name Big Sipp on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Varsha Polyproducts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC535Tri(Delhi)
1. These are four appeals, two are filed by the parties and remaining two are filed by the Department with reference to the respective impugned orders passed by the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Kandla, involving common issues. They are, therefore, clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that both the above-named appellants imported a consignment of 507.5 MTs. of Polystyrene each and declared as Wide Spec under respective invoices from Korea at US $ 510 PMT CTF, out of which 385 MTs. was declared as Polystyrene General Purpose Wide Spec and 122.5 MTs. of High Impact Grade Wide Spec. Since Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received information indicating mis-declaration and under-valuation in respect of imported goods, 80% goods were released provisionally at the request of the parties on execution of a provisional duty bond pending investigation. According to Department on detailed investigation carried out by them i...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Amritsar Bottling Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC530Tri(Delhi)
1. These are appeals filed by the Department with reference to the orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Ld. D.R. stated that the Respondents are manufacturers of aerated waters. For this purpose they utilise activated carbon for purification of syrup used for production of aerated waters. The activated carbon also acts as a catalyst.3. A question has arisen whether in the face of these facts the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 (as amended) availing set off of duty paid on raw materials.4. It was the Department's contention that since the activated carbon is only acting as a catalyst during the process of purification of the syrup therefore it could not be considered as raw material or component. Hence, the Respondent was not eligible to the benefit of notification and the Ld. Collector (Appeals) has erred in extending the benefit thereof.5. In this connection they would like to cite the T...
Tag this Judgment!