Delhi Court October 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Powerflow Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT574TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Powerflow Ltd., Bangalore, being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 349-350/87(6), dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The matter relates to the availment of Modvat credit and duty exemption under Notification No. 69/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (as amended) in respect of the same inputs and the same final products during the same period manufactured by the same manufacturer in the same factory. The appellants were availing of the exemption in respect of their final products "winding wires" made of copper under Notification No. 69/86-C.E., aforesaid. The exemption under the said notification was subject to the condition that no credit of the duty paid on unwrought copper in any form or wrought wire rods of copper used in their manufacture has been taken under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants were availing of the said exemption and no credit of the duty paid ...
Utkal Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT660TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Utkal Steel Ltd., Sundargarh, Orissa, being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 31-12-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar.2. The matter related to the classification of the products which the Revenue had held as flats, classifiable under Item No. 25(9)(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and the appellants have contended that the goods were bars classifiable under Item No. 25(9)(2) of the said Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, had held in his order that the goods in question were flats. He had confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 89,912.50. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on M/s. Utkal Steel Ltd. 3. Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant, appearing for the appellants stated that the goods manufactured by them were bars and that they have no arrangement for rolling the edges of controlled contour. They were producing bars from re-rollable material during the period 4-6-1985 to 26...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Majestic Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT465TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal No.1894-CE/CHD/91, dated 11-10-1991. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Tie bars falling under sub-heading No. 7302.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.They were charged for contravention of Rule 9(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for having cleared 265.927 MT of M.S. Tie bars during the period December, 1986 to February, 1987 at Nil rate of duty instead of paying the duty at the rate of Rs. 365/- PMT. A show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent on 27-3-1987 for recovery of duty of Rs. 97,063.35 under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector vide his order-in-original No. 38/AC/D/89, dated 11-2-1988. Having aggrieved, the party had gone in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) Chandigarh who vide her order-in-appeal No. 184-85/CE/CHG/90, dated 28-2-1990 observed that the inputs out of which ...
Kakkar Complex Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT549TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in his order, had confirmed the demand of Rs. 56,369.80 under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 57-O.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and were availing the credit of input duty under the Modvat scheme. The appellants have availed credit of duty on inputs under the Modvat scheme in respect of 'hot-tops' and 'refractory goods'. The department alleged that hot-tops and refractory goods were not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of steel ingots and therefore, were not eligible for input duty credit under the Modvat scheme. Accordingly, they issued a show cause notice. In the show cause notice, the appellants were asked to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs. 56,369.80 should not be demanded from them under Rule 57-I...
Mohta Alloy and Steel Works Vs. Mohta Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas227(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner challenging the existence and validity of the arbitration clause forming part of the lease agreements entered into between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner-company. 2. The petitioner-company was incorporated under the Companies Act in the year 1972. On February 1, 1978, the name of Mohta Alloys and Steel Works Limited was changed to Mohta Industries Limited. Both the petitioner company and Mohta Industries Limited at that point of time were part of the Mohta group of industries. The Mohta group also floated respondent No. 1 which was incorporated on September 21, 1982. During the years 1983-86 lease agreements were executed between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, namely, Mohta Industries Limited. The said lease agreements were executed by Mr. M.C. Aggarwal signing on behalf of both the companies as their director except two lease agreements wherein one of the signatories wa...
Rolls-royce Plc and anr. Vs. R.R. Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT696; (1997)115PLR5
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This is a suit instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking for permanent injunction and accounts for infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiffs by the defendant. (2) The present application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using in connection with their business or in any manner whatsoever 'R.R. 'and /or the device of interlinked 'R.R.' in a shield or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark. On 15.9.1994, this Court granted an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using 'R.R.' in a shield device. The defendant has filed a reply to the present application filed by the plaintiffs. (3) The plaintiffs have stated that the second plaintiff is a world renowned manufacturer and merchant of motor cars, motor chassis and internal combustion engines for land vehicles and parts thereof. It is further stated that the first plaintiff is the ...
Surjit Singh Vs. H.N. Pahilaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)482; 65(1997)DLT22; 1997(40)DRJ93
J.B. Goel, J.(1) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court, against order dated 20.3.1992 passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his application under Order 12 Rule 6, Order 39 Rule 10 (wrongly mentioned in the order as under Order 39 rules 1 & 2) and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code . for interim relief, i.e., for order for payment of arrears of damages w.e.f. September, 1989 at the admitted rate of rent of Rs.4,000.00 per month has been disallowed.(2) The respondent has died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been substituted.(3) Briefly, the facts are that the appellant claiming to be Landlord of the premises No.A-46, Kailash Colony, New Delhi has filed a suit against the deceased respondent (defendant in the Trial Court) for possession of demised premises and for recovery of arrears of damage/mesne profits. It was a...
Shanti Devi and anr. Vs. Ram Swarup Goela and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: 1(1997)CLT291; 65(1997)DLT129
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking partition of the property bearing No. 152-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110 007 and for rendition of accounts relating to the business carried on in the name and style of M/s. Sita Ram Goel and Brothers. (2) The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiffs and the defendants constituted a Hindu undivided family known as Sita Ram Goel and Brothers and that the said Joint Hindu Family has been carrying on business at 152- D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110 007. The claim of the plaintiffs is based on a Deed of Partition which was executed on 17.8.1957. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed that the parties to the present suit have l/4th share each in the aforesaid property being No. 152-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007. According to the plaintiffs, after the execution of the deed of partition dated 17.8.1957 the defendant No. 1 continued to act as the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and since he ...
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC362Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 241/88-BCH, dated 6-1-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants imported Universal Measuring Machine Validator and claimed classification of these machines under CTH 90.16(2). The claim of the appellants for assessment to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 49/78, dated 1-3-1978 was rejected on the ground that Notification No. 49/78 covers universal measuring instruments while goods imported are machines and that catalogue does not prove that the machines are for checking gauges, tools, jigs thereof including tools and necessary instrument. This order was upheld and their appeal was rejected by the Collector (Appeals).3. Arguing for the Revenue, the ld. D.R. while reiterating the Department's arguments submits in all fairness that the matter is covered against them by order of the Tribunal reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 61 : 1990 (49) E.L.T. 223.4. We have heard ld. D.R. and perused the records ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Falcon Tyres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT649TriDel
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits.2. The matter arises on two refund claims preferred by the respondent for a total amount of Rs. 37,026.68. Claim arises in relation to the duty paid for the period 1-11-1980 to 11-11-1980. According to the respondent, certain post manufacturing expenses were wrongly included in the assessable value and if these were deducted from the assessable value, the refund would be due. The Assistant Collector allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 23,643.00. The Collector of Central Excise directed the Assistant Collector (Legal) under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for determination of the points arising out of the decision of the Assistant Collector. Accordingly, Assistant Collector (Legal) filed an application which by virtue of Section 35E(4) was required to be treated as an appeal. The Collector (Appeals)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »