Delhi Court December 1996 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Usha Rectifier Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT398TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 176/93, dated 23-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The issue relates to Modvat credit. Whether mould cleaning compound is eligible for Modvat credit or not is an issue to be considered in the instant case. While reiterating the grounds of appeal, Shri Jangir Singh, ld. DR submitted that the item, in question, was not directly connected with the manufacturing process of the final product and, accordingly, Modvat benefit cannot be extended to the input.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. On going through the issue involved in this case, we felt that the matter can be disposed of in the absence of the respondents.3. In the instant case, mould cleaning compound is used by the respondents during the manufacturing process to project the manufacturing products from contamination to increase their life and to make them marketable according to the given specifications. There is a clear findi...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Leader Engg. Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT315TriDel

1. M/s. Leader Engineering Works, Jullundur are engaged in the manufacture of valves and cocks. They availed Modvat credit on inputs like foundry fluxes used in the preparation of sand moulds which are further used in the manufacture of valves and cocks. The Department is of the view that foundry fluxes and other chemicals are used in the manufacture of sand moulds only and when [molten] metal is poured into these moulds and allowed to cool down, they are broken to take out the crude casted parts of valves and cocks. As such, Department claims these inputs cannot be said to have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of valves and cocks. The Assistant Collector while refusing to allow credit availed by the manufacturer on the inputs, demanded duty of Rs. 90,125.92 under Rule 57-I and 57G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector the manufacturer preferred appeal before Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) held that...

S.P.i.C. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT656TriDel

1. This Appeal is directed against order dated 10-5-1996 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The Appellants claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No.69/87 in regard to spare parts of oil seal, retaining ring, ring gear, roller gear pins, slow speed shaft and accentric with bearing. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that Notification No. 132/87 excludes goods falling under Chapter 84.83 from the purview of Chapter 98.06.4. Ld. DR submits that by virtue of Notification issued under Note 7 of Chapter 98 goods cannot be classified under Chapter 98.06. Therefore the benefit under Notification No. 69/87 cannot be extended to them.5. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the records of the case.According to Chapter Note 7(d) Heading 98.06 does not cover among others : "Any other part of machinery which the Central Government may, having regard to its nature of being a part having general application, notify in the official Gazettee in this behalf." Not...

Khushi Ram Behari Lal Ltd. Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]91CompCas206(Delhi)

J.B. Goel J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of I.A. No. 6997 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff, in the suit seeking an interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from invoking the bank guarantee dated February 21, 1995. The immediate cause for the plaintiff in filing the suit is that defendant No. 1 had approached defendant No. 2 bank for extending the validity period of the bank guarantee or otherwise threatening its invocation. The bank guarantee was given for the plaintiff in pursuance of an agreement dated February 21, 1995, with defendant No. 1. 2. The dispute between the parties has arises in the following circumstances : 3. Defendant No. 1, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (for short, 'STC'), had entered into a contact with the Ministry of Food, Government of the Republic of Bangladesh, on February 1, 1995, for export of 25,000 M.T. +/- 5 per cent. India non-basmati parboiled rice (PR-106 variety). R.K. Export House was to supply the above goods to the STC ...

K.L. Juneja Vs. Bawa Dan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1997)ACC60; 1997ACJ1246; 1997IAD(Delhi)317; 65(1997)DLT289; 1997(40)DRJ684; (1997)115PLR31

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) In this suit for damages, the plaintiff seeks a decree for Rs.20 lacs in his favor and against defendants 1 to 3. The case set up in the plaint is as follows:- (2) The plaintiff is a Civil Engineer, who acquired B.E. from I.I.T., Delhi, and M.Tech from I.I.T., Kanpur, and worked in various capacities in several Govt. and semi Govt. institutions and construction companies. Defendant No.1, M/s. Bawa Dan Singh & Sons, is a partnership concern and defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. Defendant No.1 is the owner of multi-storeyed building, namely, 14, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Defendant No.1 employed defendant No.4 Ashok Nanda, a Builder and Structural Engineering Consultant, to carry out the project of construction on the floor above the fourth floor of the building in question. On December 16, 1989, the plaintiff on the invitation of the defendant No.4 visited the above said building, then under construction, for inspection of the material at fifth floor in his cap...

indira Khurana Vs. Prem Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)236; 65(1997)DLT37; 1997(40)DRJ342

Usha Mehra, J. (1) MRS.INDIRA Khurana was married to respondent Mr.Prem Prakash. From this wedlock they have been blessed with two daughters. Relations between the parties became strained as a result the petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. This petition was listed as HMA.No.338/94. During the pendency of that petition, respondent filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He sought custody of the children for two hours every day and also for certain days. He further sought the custody for a period of three weeks commencing from 10th June,1994 or in the alternative their custody so that they could tour to the Western India including Bombay and Goa besides claiming other relief and visitation rights. He also filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court. However, after talking to the children this Court did not grant the relief, in the meantime, his petition became infructuous. He accordingly withdrew hi...

Kamlesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Airport Co-op. G/H Society Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This application would dispose of a miscellaneous application dated 4.12.96 made by 19 individual members of the Airport Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. The necessary back- ground is that this Commission allowed Complaint No. C-313/92 filed by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Aggarwal, one of the members of the Society by order 23.7.93. The opposite parties arrayed in the complaint were the Co-operative Society aforesaid through its Secretary Mr. G.M. Kaul, Registrar, Co-operative Societies and D.D.A. The order directed the Society to pay an amount of Rs. 68,210/- to the complainant within a period of three months. In case of default, the said Society was liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 18% p.a. from the date of the complaint till payment and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. The decision of this Commission was affirmed and Society's appeal against the order was dismissed by the National Commission in First Appeal No. 409/93 decided on 30.1.96. The National Commis...

Sohan Lal Sachdev Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)225; 65(1997)DLT215; 1997(40)DRJ436; 1997RLR187

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Deceased Sohan Lal Sachdev, appellant herein, was the landlord of premises bearing No.49, Golf Links, New Delhi. He occupies the ground floor of the said premises. He started using the first and Barsati floors as Guest House. He informed this fact to the New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as N.D.M.C.). Pursuance to this information, the electricity charges for the first floor and Barsati floor have been changed by the N.D.M.C. It started charging on commercial basis. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction. The learned Sub Judge decided the issue No.1 in his favor by holding that the user of the premises for running Guest House cannot be termed as commercial user. However, on other issues it was held that the Ndmc was competent to charge varied electricity and water consumption rates. In conclusion it was observed that since user was neither domestic nor commercial, hence the N.D.M.C. was compet...

Aradhana Steels Vs. Regency Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. An interesting question has been raised in the course of proceedings u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The question is, whether pendency of an appeal before the National Commission has the effect of making the order passed by the State Commission non-final within the meaning of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act. In order to appreciate the question, only barest facts need be given. By an ex-parte order dated 22.8.96 this Commission directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,82,100/- besides interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of various payments till date of refund besides Rs. 500/- as costs. Respondents No. 2 and 3, who have also been impleaded as opposite parties, were held not personally liable to comply with the order as opposite party 1 was a Private Limited Company. It appears that the opposite parties have preferred an appeal against the said order before the National Commission. The complainant moved an applica...

Naran Lala Rollings (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT387TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Naran Lala Rollings Pvt. Ltd., Navsari, Gujarat, the matter relates to the interpretation of exemption notification no. 74/65-C.E., dated 1-5-1965 (as amended). The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of copper plates, sheets and circles. These copper plates, sheets and circles were Manufactured out of the waste and scrap of copper. Such waste and scrap was purchased from the open market. During the relevant time the waste and scrap was classifiable under sub-item 1(b) of Item No. 26A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants had no duty paying documents with regard to such waste and scrap. In the classification list filed during May, 1984 they had claimed exemption in respect of their finished products, plates, sheets, circles etc. under exemption notification No. 74/65-C.E., dated 1-5-1965 (as amended). It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 24-9-1984 that as there was no proof of payment of duty with regard to the waste and scrap pur...