Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Haryana Packaids Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. By this order we propose to dispose of 3 applications made by the respondent and two others. In order to appreciate the points involved we may briefly set out the background. 2. Haryana Packaids Pvt. Ltd. (applicant for short) filed a complaint registered as C-570/ 93 against United India Insurance Company Limited. By order dated 20.3.95 this Commission directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,26,000/ besides interest @15% p.a. from 1.11.91. The Insurance Company has preferred First Appeal No. 272/95 before the National Commission. The complainant filed an application u/Section 27 of the C.P. Act on 28.6.95. The National Commission declined to stay recovery by its order dated 4.10.95. The Insurance Company deposited a cheque for Rs. 8,39,276/- including costs and interest upto 12.10.95. It was prayed by the Insurance Company that the complainant be asked to produce a No Dues Certificate from the State Bank of India, Noida and U.P. Financi...

Dalmia Fresenius Medical Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT127TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Principal Collector of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi No.12/DLH/CUS/NEPZ/1995, dated 21-2-1995.2. The Ld. Counsel stated that this case has arisen due to confirmation of the demand raised by the department on the ground that the appellants had not fulfilled, the conditions of the exemption Notification No. 339/85, dated 21-11-1985.3. They were given time and opportunity by the Bench to file a list of movable and immovable property as well as the latest balance sheet. In compliance with this direction he had filed these, papers on 27 September, 1995.4. Giving a brief background of the case the Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had entered into a collaboration agreement with a German Company and imported capital goods availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 339/85, dated 21-11-1985.5. All the goods so imported were duly installed within the time available to them as per the exemption Notification N...

Siotia Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT442TriDel

1. These are appeals filedwith reference to the common order in appeal dated 26-2-1993.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of sheets and circles of copper alloys classified under Heading 74.09.3. There is no dispute about classification, however, a question has arisen whether they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No 178/88 as amended.4. This notification allows the benefit to sheets and circles produced in a rolling mill and cleared therefrom in untrimmed condition falling under 74.09 provided the conditions laid down therein were satisfied.5. At this stage the only issue which survives is as to whether use of a small quantity of zinc by them as technical necessity would disentitle them for this benefit because the proviso to the notification allow the benefit provided the goods are made from copper and articles thereof falling within Chapter 74 of the Schedule.6. It was their contention that use of the small quantity of zinc makes no difference and...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Widia (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT525TriDel

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has held as follows: "3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned consultant. Tariff Item 51A(iii), under which the A.C. sought to include the pellets, reads: "(iii) tools designed to be fitted into hand tools, machine tools or tools falling under sub-item (ii), including dies for wire drawing, extrusion dies for metals and rock drilling bits". Nothing else is covered. Therefore, any component of a tool which is specified under T.I. 51A(iii) will not fall under the other sub-item because component is not the tool as has been held clearly by the A.C. in his order-in-original and he has admitted that the shank fitting in the hard steel casing is necessary before the pellet can be made into a die, as the pellet itself cannot be used without such shank fitting. Therefore, a component of the items specifically mentioned in the sub-tariff c...

Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Kumar Auto Cast Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT137TriDel

1. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-9-1995 in terms of which she had set aside the order of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana rejecting the refund claim filed by M/s. Kumar Auto Cast Limited who are respondents in the present proceedings. The Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the amount in question had been voluntarily debited by them in their PLA towards duty on account of disallowance of Modvat Credit. The respondents herein had originally cleared one of their final products namely, MCI inserts on payment of duty by debit to their RG-23A Part II Account. It was held by the Assistant Collector that such payment of duty by utilising their Modvat Credit balance in their RG-23A Part II Account was not permissible as they had not declared the aforesaid product as one of their final products in their declaration filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules. In response to the...

Collector of Customs Vs. Blue Star Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT287TriDel

1. Respondent imported old spare parts of 86 used diesel engines from abroad valued at Rs. 5,98,646.00 CIF. Bill of Entry is of 30-5-1994, invoice is dated 22-3-1994 and Bill of Lading is dated 30-3-1994.Assessee did not produce Chartered Engineers' Certificate or manufacturer's invoice but furnished certificates from the suppliers giving the year of manufacture of engines and price of the engine in the year of manufacture and also indicating that the residual life was over five years. Machines were manufactured during the period 1982 to 1987. Import was apparently made under OGL. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice along-with work sheet stating that he was not prepared to accept the declared value and proposed to assess the value adopting the price at the time ot manufacture less depreciation of 70% and also proposed levy of penalty. The assessee objected to the show cause notice. But the Assistant Collector passed a final order on the same basis. Assessee filed an app...

Wiley Eastern Ltd. and ors. Vs. Indian Institute of Management

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)990; 61(1996)DLT281; 1995(35)DRJ522

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.(1) This appeal is by the plaintiffs 1 & 2 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.2.1995 made in I.A. 6521/94 in Suit 2640/93. The I.A. was filed by the defendant/respondent under Order 7,Rule 10A and 11 Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint or for return of the same for presentation to the proper Court for want of territorial jurisdiction at Delhi. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, allowed the said application in part holding that the High Court at Delhi does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs through their counsel for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10A (1) CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.(2) The 1st plaintiff is Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi and the 2nd plaintiff is Prof. U.K. Srivastava, resident of Ahmedabad. The defendant is the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Th...

Prem Kaur Vs. J.S. Guleria

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995RLR589

Anil Kumar, J. (1) [ED. facts : Petitioner owns suit building. She is living in the ground floor with her married son, married grandson, a grand daughter (28 years old) ; another son's wife and latter's son aged 17 years. Accommodation on the ground floor with the petitioner consists of a Drawing room, a Dining room and 3 bed rooms. She filed a petition u/S. 14(l)(e) & 25B of Drc Act in Dec., 89. Tenant was granted leave to defend on 23.2.91. She then withdrew the petition on 13.8.91 with permission to file afresh, She then filed the present petition on 9.10.91. Tenant applied for leave to defend contending that as he had earlier been granted leave to defend, same should now automatically be granted Arc agreed and granted leave to defend on 6.2.95 ignoring the plea of the landlady that there had been change of circumstances for the 2nd petition.] After detailing above. Judgment proceeds :(2) The accommodation on the ground floor of the property which is available with the landlady cons...

Professional Circuit Boards Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This case was fixed for hearing in pursuance of the directions made by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 9555 of 1995 directing the Board to dispose of either the Stay Petition or this appeal itself within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Shri R. Chakrapani, Enforcement Officer of the Enforcement Director ate, Southern Zone, communicated the order of the Hon'ble High Court under his communication of 5-10-1995 which was received in the registry on 19-10-1995. The appellant sent an application dated 28-10-1995 which was received in the registry on 31-10-1995 seeking adjournment of the hearing on the ground that Shri Shyam Behari Goenka, Director, who is familiar with the subject-matter, is out of station. It has been requested to post the appeal in the middle of December 1995. 2. In my opinion, in view of the directions made by the Hon'ble High Court in the W.P. filed by the appellant himself, there is no justification for seeking t...

Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Plastic Converters (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT137TriDel

1. The issue for decision in this appeal deals with the classification of bristles manufactured by nylon. The appellant had claimed classification under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, the benefit of exemption Notification 68/71-C.E., dated 29-1-1971. This classification has been accepted by the Collector (Appeals) at Bombay.The department has come in appeal against this order claiming classification of the goods under Tariff Item 18 as monofilament yarn.2. The manufacturing process is as follows. The nylon granules are melted and the molten liquid is extruded through holes in a die. The extorted nylon is cooled in a bath. Each of the four monofilaments extruded through the holes is wound on cylindrical rollers and subjected to processes such as stretching and orientation. Thereafter they are cut to lengths of between 2 /2" to 20". It is in these lengths that the goods are cleared.3. The essential arguments in the appeal which was reiterated by the departmental representativ...