Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Modern Paper Convertors Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT345TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, the appellants filed their Classification List No. 302/86 classifying their product Printed & Waxed Wrap per Paper under Heading 4811.40 and also claiming exemption under various notifications including Notification No.63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. However, it was approved under Heading 4818.90 denying the benefit of the exemption as claimed, as could be seen from column No. 9 of the said Classification List (Form 1, Part-II). Against that order of the approval, the appellants filed their appeal before the Collector (Appeals), but without success.Hence, the present appeal.3. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants have also filed the present Misc. Application to allow them to raise the plea of classification of the said goods under Heading 4811.40 read with Notification No. 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982.4....

C.C.E. Vs. Oxygen Equipment and Engg. Co. (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT613TriDel

1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, holding that Carbide Sludge is not an excisable goods, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue appellant, Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents are manufacturer of Acetylene Gas by utilizing Calcium Carbide as raw material. During the manufacture of Acetylene Gas, they obtained Calcium Carbide Sludge and it was found that the respondents regularly from April, 1985 to December, 1987 sold the said Calcium Carbide Sludge on payment of Excise Duty (with the exception of only three months where there was no clearances). Referring to the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Oxygen (P) Ltd. 1987 (30) E.L.T. 967, he submitted that in the said case the question was, as to whether the Carbide Sludge arising in the course of manufacture of Acetylene Gas is excisable goods or not, and the Tribunal has held ...

Ram Niwas Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ1764

J.B. Goel, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for offence under Section 302, IPC (FIR No. 278/87, P.S. Patel Nagar) for committing the murder of one Ram Sarup at about 6.00 p.m. at Kathputli Colony, Delhi vide judgment dated January 25, 1992 and vide separate order dated January 27, 1992 he has been sentenced to life imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are that some unknown persons telephonically informed police station Patel Nagar that some quarrel was going on behind MCD Primary School in Kathputli Colony and that police may be sent. This information was recorded as DD No. 21-A (Ex. PW-1/A) at 6.05 p.m. on 31st July, 1987. On receipt of the copy of this DD entry SI Sukhbir Singh along with constable Siri Om reached the place of occurrence situated at Kathputli Colony, New Delhi and found deceased Ram Sarup and accused Ram Niwas lying in injured conditions there. He sent the two injured persons to RML. Hospital through constab...

Abn Amro Bank Vs. Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 4(1995)DLT135

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. ABN Amro Bank N.V. has filed the company appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, in which a prayer has been made to set aside the order dated August 25, 1994, passed by the Company Law Board. It is also prayed in the appeal that the company petition filed by the appellant before the Company Law Board be allowed and respondent No. 1 be directed to rectify the register maintained by it in respect of the said IRFC bonds, by entering the appellant's name as the holder of the said 1 lakh 9 per cent. (tax free) secured redeemable non-convertible (VI-A series 1991-92) bonds of Rs. 1,000 each and to restore to the appellant the said letter of allotment, after making due endorsements and issue bond certificates in respect of the said bonds to the appellant along with interest warrants. 2. The appellant has also prayed that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 be directed to pay compensation for non-payment of interest on the said IRFC bonds on and after June 26, 1992, co...

Kusum Lata Khajanchi and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)900; 61(1996)DLT37; 1995(35)DRJ480

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioners seek quashing of the letter dated 23.3.95 of the respondent-DDA whereby the petitioners' bid for a plot made on 23.2.95 has been directed to be rejected by the Vice Chairman-DDA and amount of earnest money deposited on the date of the auction directed to be refunded. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to accept the petitioners' bid in accordance with the terms and the conditions of the auction. (2) It is not disputed that plot No.43 in Residential Scheme Pocket-V, Sector-C, Basant Kunj was advertised by the Dda for sale by public auction. The petitioners made a bid of Rs.42.40 lacs which was accepted as the highest bid by the officer conducting the sale. The petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.10,60,000.00 being the amount of earnest money. The bid was put up before the Vice Chairman-DDA for acceptance. The Vice Chairman has not accepted the bid. The auction was conducted under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Deve...

Saroj Kapur Vs. New Rajdhani Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 61(1995)DLT773

S.D. Pandit, J. (1) This application is filed by Maj.Vinod Kumar Dua, who has been added as a party to this suit as per my order dated 30.8.95. He has filed this application for setting aside the order passed by this Court on 9.11.1994 in IA.9712/ 94 in this Suit. (2) It is the claim of the applicant that defendant No. 1 Society had already allotted plot No. 8 in his favor and on account of the passing of the said order of 9.11.1994 he is not getting the possession of the plot No, 8 allotted to him and this is causing hardship and inconvenience to him and, thereforee, the said order should be set aside. (3) Before considering this application it is necessary to mention in some detail the facts which give ground to the present application. Suit No. 162/87 is filed by Dr. Saroj Kapur against New Rajdhani Cooperative House Building Society Limited and others. It is her case that she had become the member of the said Society in the year 1967 as per the constitution of the said Society in t...

NaraIn Singh Vs. Vijendra Singh Chadha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)672; 61(1996)DLT32; 1996(36)DRJ649

Arun Kumar, J. (1) The respondents in this appeal filed eviction petition against the appellants herein under the provisions of clauses (b), (c) and (J) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenants from the premises comprising one hall (15' X 16') and one kitchen-cum-shop on the ground floor of property No.F-14/1, Model Town,Delhi. As per the case of the landlords in the eviction petition the premises had been let out for purpose of restaurant business at a monthly rent of Rs.l26.88p excluding water and electricity charges.(2) The eviction was sought on the following grounds- (I) that the premises was let out to appellants I and 2 for restaurant business but the same was mis used for residential purpose without the consent of landlords. The misuse had not stopped in respect of service of notice dated 4th April 1973. (II) appellants I and 2 bad caused substantial damage to the premises by r...

R.P. Mittal Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Adjudication Order No. 626/Adj /93 / AD/KC, dated 29-12-1993 passed in adjudication proceedings held in pursuance of show-cause notice No. T-4/34/DZ/89-SCN-V1, dated 11-4-1989. The appellant has been held guilty of the charges of contravention of sections 16(1)(a), 14, 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). All the charges have been found to be substantiated and a cumulative penalty of Rs. 52,000 has been imposed for the same. The appellant has complied with the directions made in this Board's order of 31-9-1995 disposing of dispensation applications in this and other related appeals of the appellant. This order disposes of Appeal No. 102 of 1994 on merits. 2. The charges as made out in the Show Cause Notice were that Process Instrumentation, the proprietary concern of Shri Mittal, the appellant herein, earned a commission of DM 28560.79 from Siegfried Theimer Gmbh, Hamberg; that during the period from 1983 to 1...

Collector of Customs Vs. Im Kemex India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT95TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs House, Madras.2. The respondents have claimed refund of additional duty paid on the ground that as per Notifications 33/81 and 35/81, dated 1-3-1981, Copper scrap produced in India has been exempted from payment of duty arid no additional duty is leviable on the imported goods. This claim has been rejected by the Asstt. Collector. On appeal filed by the party, the Collector (Appeals) has accepted the contentions of the party while allowing the appeal. The main plea put forth by the appellants before the Collector (Appeals) is that these types of scraps are not manufactured articles and therefore did not come within the purview of the Central Excise duty. It was also explained by them that persons who are gathering, sorting and grading worn out used materials such as these do not require Central Excise Licence and their product cannot attract Central Excis...

Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT421TriDel

1. The appellant is a limited company manufacturing ascerbic acid I.P., mannitol B.P. and sorbitol. These were exempted from duty till 1-3-1986. These become chargeable to duty on or after 3-4-1986. On 3-4-1986, Government of India issued a Notification exempting bulk drugs and chemicals coming under Chapters 28 and 29 of the Customs Tariff from payment of Excise Duty subject to certain conditions (see Notification 234/86C.E.). The appellant was paying the duty under protest during the period from 3-4-1986 to 26-4-1986. On 27-5-1986 the appellant applied for refund of Rs. 6,80,417.92 paid for the period. On 21st July, 1986, the Assistant Collector ordered refund subject to the deduction of Rs. 1,02,062.68. On 7-11-1986, the Assistant Collector concerned issued notice to the appellant stating that refund was wrongly granted and required the appellant to show cause why the refund amount should not be recovered under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This was based on le...