Delhi Court August 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.
Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas205(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is an application whereby the petitioner prays for grant of an interim injunction restraining the second respondent from releasing the payments of bank guarantees, bearing Nos. G-76/1337 and G-78/448, dated December 6, 1982, and April 9, 1984, respectively. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows : The first respondent floated tenders inviting quotations from various engineering houses regarding supply and supervision of erection and commissioning of two numbers of cement mills at Tandur, State of Andhra Pradesh. Ultimately, after considering the tenders submitted by various concerns, the first respondent issued letter of intent dated November 9, 1982, in favor of the petitioner for supply and supervision of erection and commissioning of two cement plants. According to the letter of intent, a formal contract covering terms and conditions was to be signed within three months from the date of the acceptance of the letter of intent. It is the co...
M/S. Repl Limited Vs. Gas Authority of India Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: 2003(39)DRJ227
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the respondents and questions the legality and validity of the recommendations made by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 to award the contract to respondent No. 3 with consequential prayer to quash and set aside the same. Further direction is prayed against respondents 1 and 2 to appropriately evaluate the price bid of the petitioner and after going into the legality of the same to award the contract to the said petitioner, being the lowest qualified bidder. Respondent No. 1 is a company wholly owned by Union of India and is registered under the Companies Act and its main business is to generate and supply gas to various consumers. Respondent No. 2 is also a Government company and its main objects include the providing of consultation services in the matter of engineering and procurement of equipments for the petroleum and oil gas industries. The said respondent has acted as consultant to respondent No. 1 in the matter of iss...
Repl Limited Vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)227; 1996(26)ARBLR660(Delhi); 64(1996)DLT176; 1996(39)DRJ227
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against the respondents and questions the legality and validity of the recommendations made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 to award the contract to respondent No.3 with consequential prayer to quash and set aside the same. Further direction is prayed against respondents 1 and 2 to appropriately evaluate the price bid of the petitioner and after going into the legality of the same to award the contract to the said petitioner, being the lowest qualified bidder. Respondent No. 1 is a company wholly owned by Union of India and is registered under the Companies Act and its main business is to generate and supply gas to various consumers. Respondent No.2 is also a Government company and its main objects include the providing of consultation services in the matter of engineering and procurement of equipments for the petroleum and oil gas industries. The said respondent has acted as consultant to respondent No.1 in the matter of issuan...
Lalchandani Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT504TriDel
1. Appellants imported "48,000 pairs of Magnetic Sound Head with Eraser Head" and 50,000 pieces condenser MIC "from Hong Kong. What is meant for "48,000 pairs" is that there were 48,000 Magnetic Sound Head and 48,000 Eraser Head. Bill of Entry was presented on 12-10-1990. The value declared was Rs. 1.50 per pair of Magnetic Sound Head with eraser head and Rs. 0.27 per piece for Condenser MIC. Customs House objected to the value. Show cause notice was waived. The Additional Collector passed order rejecting the declared prices and enhancing the same to Rs. 2.50 per pair of Magnetic Sound Head with Eraser Head and Rs. 0.63 per piece of Condenser MIC. He also confiscated the goods granting opportunity to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000. He also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellants. This order is now challenged.2. The loading of value was on the basis of two invoices, one of Singapore in regard to Magnetic Sound Head with Eraser Head and the other of Ho...
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT414TriDel
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal A-141 /94, dated 13-4-1994 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).1.2. The appellants are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of circuit breakers of the following types.The Appellants claimed the classification of these circuit breakers under subheading [8535.00] of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, [1985], and claimed also exemption under Notification No.52/93-C.E., dated 28th Feb. 1993. Vide order 11th June 1993 the Assistant Collector held Bulk Oil Circuit Breakers were classifiable under sub-heading 85.37 of C.E.T. Act. He however held the porcelain clad vaccum circuit Breakers and EHV SF6 Gas Circuit Breakers were classifiable under sub-heading [8533.00]. The Respondent filed application under Section 35E(iv) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order dated 11th June, 1993 of Assistant Collector claiming Porcelain Clad Vacuum Circuit Breakers and EHV SF 6 Gas circuit Breakers were classifiable un...
Krishna Khandsari Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT142TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the order-in-original passed by the learned Collector, Central Excise. The Collector, Central Excise, in his order, had held : "I order the party to pay duty at the appropriate rate prevalent at that time on the 2nd centrifugal for the whole season i.e. from 15-1-1977 to 31-10-1977. Considering that the case has dragged for a long period, I take a lenient view and impose a penalty of Rs. 500/- only under Rule 92E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I also confiscate the seized Khandsari sugar weighing 12 qtls. under Rule 92E ibid. However, I give the party an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 100/- The option should be exercised within one month of the receipt of this order." 2. The facts of the case are that the officers of the Central Excise paid a surprise visit to the Khandsari factory of the appellants. This factory was operating under the compounded levy system for the period from 1-11-197...
industrial Cables (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT419TriDel
1. The common appellants in these two appeals are aggrieved by the rejection by the Assistant Collector of their refund claims and the refusal of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to interfere.2. Appellants manufacture industrial cables. These refund claims arise in regard to clearance of goods covered by three price lists dated 12-5-1980, 12-8-1980, 29-10-1980. Appellants claimed deductions of excise duty, Central sales tax and notional average freight from the cum duty contract price. The Assistant Collector approved the price disallowing three deductions claimed under orders passed on 12-2-1981,13-2-1981 and 22-10-1981 respectively. Appellants had not filed appeals against these orders. It appears the dispute between the parties in regard to disallowance of deduction on average freight on the 1979 price list was pending at that time. The Collector (Appeals) subsequently allowed the appellant's appeal allowing deduction on notional average freight. On 17-3-1983 appellants fi...
Mittal Udyog Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT486TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 1559-DLH/88, dated 4-10-1988.2. The appellants received a consignment of Melting Scrap of Alloy Steel Stainless Steel Scrap on High seas Sales basis through M/s. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. The appellants claimed this consignment as scrap. On examination of what was claimed to be imported scrap weighing in all 36,739 kgs., the Customs Authorities at ICD, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi sorted and singled out a quantity of 2,500 kgs. which they alleged was not scrap but threaded articles of steel namely hooks, nuts, rivets, strips, circles and sheets etc. Consequent to proceedings initiated against the appellants, the Customs Authorities confiscated these goods as the goods needed ITC licence, not being scrap. The consignment was, however, allowed to be released on redemption fine of Rs. 17,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed.3. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that the articles like nuts, rivets, shee...
Havmor Ice Cream Company Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT65TriDel
1. The appellants, a partnership firm, are engaged in the manufacture of ice cream since 1979. They had entered into an agreement in March 1990 with a Private Limited Company for distribution of their product.The agreement provided for supplying their entire production to that company. The agreement, inter alia, provided that the distributor company shall be at liberty to incur whatever expenses it liked for the promotion of its proprietary interest in the goods purchased by it.They had incurred expenses for advertising the product. Such expenses were considered by the Central Excise department to have been incurred on behalf of the appellants and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad by his order in original dated 8-12-1995 added the said advertisement expenses to the value of the ice cream cleared by the appellants and worked out the duty on such increased value. Thereby the present appeal.2. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate appeared for the appellants along with ...
Komal Offset Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT501TriDel
1. The appellants imported a second hand Solna 425 offset printing machine from U.K. and presented the invoice of the suppliers which showed the price as 25,000. This was not accepted by the Custom House as representing the correct value which was redetermined with reference to another invoice relating to a different import of the same make and model of printing machine, also imported from the same country, U.K.Against the Assistant Collector's order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who confirmed the impugned order. Thereby the present appeal.2. Shri Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the appellants raised a preliminary point that they were not issued a show cause notice in the matter and were also not heard in the matter. Moreover they got the order-in-original only after repeated letters to the Custom House requesting for issue of formal order to enable them to file an appeal.After nearly a year after the payment of duty and clearance of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »