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.
Manohar Lal Arora Vs. Sunila Agarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)782; II(1996)BC610; 63(1996)DLT658; 1996(38)DRJ434; (1996)114PLR51
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs: I)a decree for an amount of Rs.l3,50,000.00 may be passed in, favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants herein: or ii) for the possession of the IInd Floor of the suit premises bearing No. W- 104, Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi, Along with damages as the defendants have been in possession of the premises in dispute illegally, surreptitiously and without any legal authority: iii) For the interest accrued to the plaintiff at the rate of 18% per annum on the payment from the date of receipt due to the plaintiff on the principal and damages till its actual realisation.(2) The plaintiff claimed the relief of specific performance or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs.l3,50,000.00 . I do not want to refer to the pleadings in details because the parties had indulged in prolixity of pleadings with a view to projecting their respective contentions. The defendants have joined issues with the plaintiff ...
Kailash Chand JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT529TriDel
1. The common appellant in these appeals imported two consignments of Gambier, Long Pepper and Javitri Mace from Indonesia in April, 1990 at Cochin port. The dispute in the appeals relates to valuation of Javitri Mace so imported. Appellant declared the value as Rs. 37.40 per kg., which the Collector of Customs loaded to Rs. 50.00 per kg. on the basis of certain imports at Bombay and Madras ports. On the ground of misdeclaration of value, the Collector also confiscated the Javitri Mace consignment permitting the appellant to redeem the same on payment of fine. He also imposed penalty on the appellant in both the cases.Redemption fine fixed was Rs. 40,000.00 in each case. Amount of penalty in each case was Rs. 5000.00. This order is now challenged.2. Appellant imported 15075 kgs. of Javitri Mace in two consignments.There is no dispute that the consignment was from old crop and contained over 30% of dead leaves, dust and other foreign matter as well as broken and crumbled small pieces. ...
Kothari Oil Products Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT400TriDel
1. The appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The learned Collector has held that the appellants were availing set off under Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-74979. The said Notification has been rescinded vide Notification No. 186/88, dated 1-3-1986 further the appellants had continued to avail of Rule 56A facility from 1-3-1986 to 13-8-1986 in view of the provisions contained Rule 56A(8), but the Assistant Collector had confirmed the demand of Rs. 24,158/- in respect of set off availed by the appellants for the period 1-3-1986 to 13-8-1986. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 56 only specified that credit shall be allowable if the credit of duty was allowable in respect of such material, component parts or finished product under the rule immediately before the commencement of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The learned Collector has held that the appellants were not eligible for credit under Rule 56A prior to 1-3-1986 and hence they do not qualify for...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Uttam Indl. Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT498TriDel
1. This is an appeal and stay application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. When the matter was argued, it became clear that the main appeal itself could be decided at this stage. Both sides have no objection.3. The issue involved in the appeal is whether the electrical overhead travelling (EOT) cranes is an admissible item of machinery for Modvat avail-ment under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Collector held that this crane was used only for handling of the heavy machinery parts and their raw-materials. He observed that EOTs are specifically allowed with effect from 16-3-1995 by virtue of Notification No. 11/95 dated 16-3-1996 and, therefore, prior to this date they were not admissible. He further held that such cranes did not bring any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. The Collector in his Order-in-Appeal has observed that the cranes were used for moving heavy machinery parts from one place to other within the...
Pesticide Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT678TriDel
1. In these three appeals the single issue involved is as to the period for which the interest prescribed under Section 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is to be calculated. The facts leading to the dispute are as follows : 2. The appellants imported certain consignments and filed the Bills of entry for warehousing these goods for the period prescribed under Section 61(l)(b). The Bills of Entry were assessed and returned to the importers. The importers paid 50% of the duty so assessed and warehoused the goods. On the date of removal of the goods along with the remainder of the duty so assessed, they were asked to pay interest for the period from the expiry of 7 days from the date on which the Bills of Entry were returned to them, till the date of physical clearance from the wareshouse. The appellants complied with this direction but subsequently filed a refund claim for the interest so paid on the ground that the total period for which the goods were warehoused had not exceeded the peri...
C.C.E. Vs. Jindal Polyester Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT541TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held : "I have considered the matter. It is evident from the facts of the case that the use of Mafron Gas is absolutely essential for manufacture of the polyester film and yarn. It is immaterial that such input is not physically present in the final product. Considered in the light of the Tribunal's judgment as relied upon by the appellants and the Board's instruction, the order passed by the appellants and the Board's instruction, the order passed by the Asstt. Collector does not stand to reason. The same is vacated.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of polyester film yarn falling under Chapter Heading 5402 of Central Excise Tariff. The respondents were availing Modvat credit of duty paid on refrigerant gas-mafron used as inputs under the Modvat scheme under Rule 57A. The Department alleged that mafron...
Mohan Kumar Chhabra Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT49TriDel
1. In this case one Video camera with accessories was seized from the appellants and was confiscated absolutely in adjudication proceedings.However, no penalty was imposed. The orders of confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(p) were upheld in toto by the Collector (Appeals) resulting in the present appeal before the CEGAT.2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate, arguing for the appellants stated that the appellants had given the name of the person, namely, Shri P.K.Vashist from whom he had purchased the goods. Copies of clearance documents were also filed. The Department had not made any attempt to verify the truth in the evidence tendered by them. The ld. Advocate stated that the goods were used. The charge of illegal importation had not been proved and for contravention of the provision of Chapter (VIA), the orders of absolute confiscation were too harsh. Advocate stated that the fact that no penalty was imposed would show that the adjudicating authority was convinced of the fact that ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1135TriDel
1. This is an application for referring a question of law to the High Court. We have heard both sides.2. The question relates to the claim of the manufacturer of Caustic Soda for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of duty paid on Titanium metal anodes used as anodes in electrolysis of Sodium Chloride Brine. Under this provision a manufacturer of specified final products is entitled to credit of specified duty paid on specified inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products subject to the provisions of Section AA of the Rules and the conditions and restrictions that may be specified in any of the notification required to be issued under the Rules. The Explanation to the rule is in two parts; the first part is inclusive in nature and the second part is exclusive in nature. The exclusion clause has five sub-clauses. According to Clause (i), for the purpose of the rule, "inputs" does not include machines, machinery, plant, equipme...
Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Commit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)860; 63(1996)DLT676; (1996)114PLR53
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff in the present suit prayed for the following relief: 'THISHon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the alleged settlement contained in the letters dated 7.6.1976, 23.6.76, 3.8.76, 21.9.76 and the said alleged joint application dated 31.7.77 is illegal, invalid, void and is not binding on the plaintiff, in view of the facts that the same were got written and signed by the plaintiff under duress, force and coercion. The decree for declaration to this effect may kindly be passed.'(2) The case had a chequered career. The defendant filed the written statement taking plea that notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was not issued by the plaintiff and, thereforee, the suit is not competent. (3) On 3.11.1981, issues were framed by this Court and the first issue is 'whether the suit is barred in view of the provisions contained under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911?' (4) The suit is filed on the basis of the order passed b...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)462; 1996(38)DRJ680
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Delhi Transport Corporation ( for short 'DTC') came into existence under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Periodically the Dtc disposed of worn out, unserviceable buses, motor- parts and other unserviceable and/or scrap material including electrical goods. During the assessment year 1975-76, the Sales Tax Officer by assessment order dated 30th March 1982 created an additional tax demand of Rs.l,64,049.00 holding that the sale of these items was made by Dtc in normal course of its business activities. The gross turnover for the sale of such items was about Rs.l7,07,117.00 . In the appeal filed by Dtc before the Tribunal the following two points were raised:- I)Whether the sale of the old and unserviceable items could be regarded as connected with or incidental or ancillary to any trade or commerce if at all carried on by the Dtc ? II)Whether the sale transactions by reason of their being voluminous pro-prick vigore would bring the Corporation within the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »