Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments

Kissan Chemicals Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)510; 64(1996)DLT73; 1996(37)DRJ623; 1996(88)ELT648(Del)

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos-3903/95 (M/s Kissan Chemicals v. Union of India and others), 3836/95 (PI Industries Ltd. and another v. The Union of India and others), 3939/95 (M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills v. Central Board of Excise and Customs) and 1008/96 (M/s Markfed Agro Chemicals v. Union of India and others). The petitioners in all these petitions have challenged the issuance of Circular/Order, Annexure P-3 to the petition, issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The learned counsel have contended that common questions arise in all the cases, though in some cases the Circular has been impugned and in other cases the issuance of show cause as well as the consequent orders have been challenged. The petitions are, thereforee, disposed of by this judgment.(2) The facts of writ petition No-3903/95 (M/s Kissan Chemicals v. Union of India and others) may be noticed.(3)...

Sachdeva Educational Society Vs. Residents Welfare Association,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)229; 64(1996)DLT768; 1996(39)DRJ475

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In the suit by the plaintiff educational society for decree for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants No.1 to 9 from dispossessing the plaintiff society from the suit land measuring 1.20 acres (4900 sq.mtrs.) situated at G-8 Area, Press Colony, Rajouri Garden New Delhi, more particularly shown in colour Red in the rough site plan. Schedule 'A' and or from interfering in the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the suit land and for a decree of mandatory injunction requiring defendants No.10 and 11 to enforce the directions by this Court and to protect the plaintiff's lawful possession and its rights and enjoyment over the suit land, by.I.A. No-2572/95, the plaintiff seek to restrain the defendants in identical terms, by I.A. No-2662/95, the plaintiff seeks to restrain defendants No.1 to 9 from obstructing/ interfering in any manner whatsoever the plaintiff in erecting/constructing the boundary wall around this suit plot measuring 1.20 acres (approx...

Golcha Hosiery Mills Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)104; AIR1997Delhi72; 63(1996)DLT9; 1996(37)DRJ522

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 4.3.1994 passed in C.W.P.N0.2806/88byK.S.Bhat,J.(2) In this appeal, a very short controversy is involved. The appellant has been carrying on business of manufacturing of Hosiery for a number of years. It was decided by the respondent Dda to shift the Hosiery industry from the walled city to different industrial areas, including Rampura Industrial Area, and Okhla industrial area. It is alleged by the appellant that according to the Dda, all those who were shifted from the walled city to different industrial areas were entitled to alternative industrial plots and in that scheme the appellant also applied for allotment of an industrial plot. The appellant initially requested that he be allotted industrial plot in Rampura industrial area but the respondent did not agree. It is submitted that the respondent instead of issuing the demand letter without any basis, refunded the earnest money vide its le...

income-tax Officer Vs. Rajan Mathur.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)264

ORDERT. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, PRESIDENT :ITA No. 2416This is a Departmental appeal for asst. yr. 1989-90, against the order dt. 22nd January, 1993, passed by the Dy. CIT(A), New Delhi. Two points are involved in this appeal. The first is with regard to the allowances of expenses of Rs. 42,151 from out of the total incentive commission of Rs. 1,05,378 received from his masters M/s. Modi Zerox Ltd. The assessed is an employee with M/s. Modi Zerox Ltd. since April, 1988 and in the relevant accounting year which ended by 31st March, 1989, he was designated as Major Accounts Manager engaged in selling of photocopying machines manufactured by the employer-company. The salary certificate which was issued by the employer-company to the assessed was not produced before this Tribunal. However, the assessed himself admitted that one Shri S. K. Taing, Dehradun was one of his colleagues employed in the same company and assessed by ITO Ward-3, Dehradun, and his assessment order for 1988-89 passed by th...

Rachna (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT393TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad dated 25-1-1996.2. Learned counsel stated that the appellants are a small scale unit registered at Lucknow. They had filed a classification list effective from 22-9-1989 claiming the benefits of the Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that they were a small scale unit duly registered with proper authorities.3. The Assistant Collector, however, passed his order on this classification list only in 1991 and the same was communicated to the appellants vide letter dated 12-4-1991.4. On receipt of this communication, they found that they had been denied the benefits of small scale industry Notification and the classification list had been amended approving it only for standard rate of duty.5. This letter of the department did not indicate any reasons for disallowing the benefit claimed by them and amending the classification list as proposed by them i.e. for denying the exempt...

Biharijee Exports Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT (A) dated 4-1-1993 for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The DC, Special Range - 17, New Delhi has levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000 by his order dated 13-12-1990 passed under section 272A of the I.T. Act, 1961 by observing as under :- My assessee, Shri Jagdish Parshad Aggarwal, Prop. of M/s Alpine Exports, T-18, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-II, New Delhi has made purchases from M/s Biharijee Exports. To verify the purchases, summons under section 131 dated 11-10-1990 were served on the assessee on 11-10-1990 fixing the case for 16-10-1990 specifying to produce books of account, bank statement, stock register and other relevant documents for the period 17-7-1987 to 31-3-1989. The assessee failed to produce the books of account and other documents as detailed in the notice. Again summons were issued under section 131 fixing the case for 12th November, 1990, duly served to produce the books of account and other relevant documents ...

Exportos Apparel Group Ltd. Vs. Sarvarya Textiles Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 61(1996)DLT805

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application of the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeking stay of the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 19,76,427.00 . Brief facts giving rise to filing of the application are that:- (2) Under a sales contract dated 18th August, 1992 stated to have been entered into between the parties, the defendant had agreed to supply 3,60,000 metres of auto loom grey fabric '30s X 30s - 76/68' with 98' width. The defendant failed to supply any part of the material as stipulated in the agreement. On account of the breach alleged to have been committed by the defendant, the plaintiff states that it had suffered loss of Rs. 19,08,254.00 . The present suit has, thereforee, been filed for the recovery of the said loss, alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff, along with interest. (3) Instead of filing the written statement, the defendant has filed this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay ...

Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT657TriDel

1. There is some delay in making the pre-deposit as ordered by us. In the circumstances referred to in the application and Miscellaneous Order No. 54/96-A, dated 12-4-1996, we condone the delay in making the deposit and treat the deposit as having been made in time. Application is disposed of....

Na Vs. Ari Processing Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT386TriDel

1. Ld. Counsel stated that the Collector (Appeals) has disposed of the five appeals by a common order as the facts are similar and issues involved are the same.2. The appellants are engaged in the activity of reducing the gauge of mild steel wire rods. The appellants buy wire rods of 8 m.m. diameter.Thereupon these are drawn through a machine and its gauge is reduced.3. The appellants buy the requirements of mild steel wire rods in the open market mostly from the Steel Authority of India Ltd. All sellers of mild steel rods pay duty and clear the said goods.4. It was their contention that reducing the guage of mild steel wire rods was not manufacture and thus the activity undertaken by the appellants did not amount to manufacture and they were not required to take out a central excise licence. But in view of the insistence of the department they took out a licence and followed the prescribed procedure, but claimed exemption w.r.t Notification No. 75/67, 113/80, 111/78 as the products m...

Aruna Sugars and Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT540TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether rebate under Notification No. 36/76 dated 25-2-1976 was on excess production or was on the clearance.2. The facts of the case are that the Government of India issued Notification No. 36/76 on 25-2-1976. The Notification provided for concessional rate of duty on excess production. This Notification was rescinded on 16-8-1978. The appellants had produced 68,659 quintals as excess production during the year 1977-78 and claimed that 65% of the excess production namely 44,628 quintals should be permitted to be cleared under the concessional rate of duty even after rescinding of Notification 36/76 dated 25-2-1976. The appellants preferred refund claim for Rs. 44,32,006.68. This refund claim was reduced to Rs. 4,27,017.15 by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the concessional rate of duty shall not be applicable to the excess production on or after 16-8-1978. The Collector (Appeals) agreed with the findings of the Assista...