Delhi Court July 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.
Kumar Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT172TriDel
1. In all these appeals benefit of nil rate of duty on goods claimed to be agricultural implements has been denied to the appellants. Hence these appeals.2. Appeal No. E/1895/87-B1 relates to question of classification and does not involve any duty demand as such.3. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Consultant submits that demands pertain to period Nov., 1985 to May, 1986. All demands except those relating to the month of June, 1986 are time barred. He submits that no show cause notices were issued in all these cases and payment of amounts alleged to be short levied was demanded on RT 12 returns.Since no proper show cause notices were issued, the orders are not sustainable.4. The Learned DR submits that in these cases classification list had been approved on 3-7-1986 and it was in consequence of that approval that short levy was demanded on the RT 12. In such cases no show cause notices were needed.5. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of Appeal No.E/873-880/87-B...
State Bank of India and Etc. Vs. Vijay Kr. Tayal and Others, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi170; 64(1996)DLT264; 1996(39)DRJ73; (1997)115PLR25
ORDER1. By this common order, I would be deciding the question of transfer of suits instituted by Banks and Financial Institutions to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, constituted under 'the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993' hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. By virtue of Section 17 of the Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been conferred the jurisdiction to try and entertain an application for Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions. An appellate Tribunal has also been constituted to entertain appeals from orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been excluded in relation to matters falling within jurisdiction of the Tribunal except under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India. Reference may usefullybe made to Section 31, which deals withtransfer of pending cases. Section 31 of theAct is as under:-- Transfer of pending cases.-- (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court ...
Metalex Pipes Ltd. Vs. Iatc Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT116
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Plaintiff has filed this suit for prohibitory and mandator injunction against the defendants, inter alia, on the allegations that it is engaged in the sale and purchase of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and is also the manufacturer of steel pipes at B-23, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase 1, Rewari Line, New Delhi. Defendant No. 1 is engaged in import and export of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Plaintiff entered into a Bond Transfer Sale Agreement dated 5.12.1995 with defendant No. 1 for purchase of Hot rolled coils (for short the goods) weighing 3078.320 Mt stored under bond Nos. CW-18-48 to CW-18-59 all dated 25.9.1995 at Bhandup Bonded Warehouse, Bombay under the control of defendant 2 and these goods are covered under the bill of lading Nos. 1 to 12 all dated 10.8.1995. It is further alleged that in lieu of the sale consideration plaintiff paid Rs. 6,60,000.00 vide cheque No.7447855 dated 5.12.1995 Rs. 6,00,000.00 vide cheque No.468391 dated 26.12.1995, Rs. 9,00,...
Galaxy (Frp) P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT101TriDel
1. Learned Counsel stated that the main issues involved in this case is as to whether the Modvat credit taken on the basis of the documents in dispute had been correctly availed of in view of the Notification No.15/94 which allows credit to be taken on the basis of prescribed documents provided they had been issued before 1-4-1994 and the endorsements are made before 30-6-1994 and the credit is taken on or before 30-6-1994.2. It was their submission that the factual position in respect of these documents is as per the tabulated particulars which are being filed before the Court now with a copy to the other side. (i) GP 1 issued before 1-4-1994 to the depots of the manufacturers but the endorsements by the Depots made after 1-4-1994 and received by the appellants directly from the depots. (ii) GP 1 issued by the manufacturers before 1-4-1994 to registered dealers and received by the appellants through the trading channels by way of endorsements made after 1-4-1994, but the credit taken...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hind High Vacuum Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT684TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 146/86-B, dated 19-11-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The issue that falls for determination is whether "Lyophiliser" is classifiable under the then Tariff Item 29A as refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances or under Tariff Item 68 erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.2. Arguing for the Revenue, ld. D.R. submits that basically it performs the function of refrigerating, and therefore, it ought to have been held classifiable under Tariff Item 29A. He, however, conceeds that today these items are being assessed under 8419.00 of the present tariff and Collector has accepted this as correct tariff item,. He also concedes that Chandigarh Collectorate did issue a trade notice to which a reference has been made by Collector (Appeals), indicating classification of this very item "lyophiliser" under Tariff Item 68.4. We have heard ld. D.R. and perused the records of the case. The literature placed in the appeal pa...
Northern Aronatic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT119TriDel
1. This case was posted for hearing of the stay application. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Ld. Advocate, submitted that during the pendency of the stay application the appellants had voluntarily reversed the amount of Modvat Credit in dispute. He placed on record photo copy of the RG 23A Part II Register which shows the reversal and refers to the Order-in-Original under dispute. Ld. Advocate submitted that the main appeal could be taken up for disposal today. Shri Nank Chand, JDR, had no objection. The case was accordingly taken up for final hearing.2. The dispute relates to whether the two gate passes under which Modvat Credit was taken were eligible documents or not. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Ld. Advocate submitted that the duplicate copy of invoice No.5, dated 8-4-1994 issued by M/s. Prakash Platinum Ltd., Bombay was lost in transit. An application was made to the Assistant Collector for taking credit on the strength of the original invoice on 3-8-1994. The Credit had earlier been taken by them ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bombay Cranes (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT174TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) who had held that: "I have carefully gone through the order appealed against and considered the various submissions made in the appeal petition/letter dated 24-2-1986 as well as those argued at the time of personal hearing. It was argued by the appellants in only 2 cases they had supplied the raw materials worth about Rs. 25,000/- and in other cases they purchased the goods from outside and sent their consignment to various parties. The bought out items cannot be added for arriving at the clearances value in determining the eligibility of exemption benefit as envisaged under Notification No. 77/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985. The excise law does not prohibit the licence in. doing trading activity. My above finding gets support from the decisions held by the higher authorities as follows :- (1) Re : Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 720 (G.O.L) observe: "Government therefore hold that the elev...
Peoples Engg. and Motor Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ267
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) By this application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the respondent Union of India challenges the award of the Arbitrator dated March 19 1985. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:- (2) The respondent/Union of India invited tenders for construction and supply of Nos. 100 Ton Steel Dock Barges. The petitioner submitted its tender which was accepted on January 21, 1971. The Accepted Tender(A/T) value of the barges was Rs.11,53,600 excluding delivery charges of Rs.65,000.00 per barge. The respondent asserts that the delivery period was extended from time to time but the petitioner failed to deliver the vessels with the result that the delivery portion of the contract was can celled by the respondent/Union of India on June 23, 1977. A risk purchase contract was finalised on May 21, 1979 with the petitioner and the petitioner agreed to deliver vessels against R/P (risk purchase). As a result of the risk purchase, the respondent ...
Mona (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1300Del
ORDER1. Yet another opportunity is sought by learned counsel for the respondent to file reply. We are not inclined to grant any further adjournment. Last opportunity was allowed to the respondent on November 15, 1995 to file reply within two weeks. Reply was not filed. On February 27, 1996 further indulgence was shown when four weeks further time was allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the order was communicated to the respondent but he has not received any response from respondents. Costs have also not been paid. In these circumstances we are proceeding on the basis of the averments made in the petition which. are duly supported by the petitioner on his own affidavit.2. Petitioner's father was gainfully emploved as regular Beldar (Safai Karrnachari) with the respondent in Anti Malaria Department. Me died in harness on June 30, 1993. Had he not expired he was to remain with the respondent till 2001 A.D. A request was made by...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Wander Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT498TriDel
1. The appeal throws up two issues namely: (a) whether 'spert' is a milk food or not so that it comes within the mischief of Entry 14 of Notification No. 17/70, dated 1-3-1970 and (b) whether the product in question is exempt under the aforesaid notification.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of a product described by them as "spert". The Assistant Collector in his Order-in-Original held that the product described by the appellants as "spert" is nothing but a milk food and hence was not exempted in terms of Notification 17/70. The appellants went in appeal against this order of the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and allowed the appeal of the respondents. Against this order of the Collector (Appeals) the department has come up in appeal before us.3. Shri A.K. Madan, the learned SDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the entry at Serial Number 14 of the Schedule to the Notifi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »