Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Lichho Devi and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT694

ORDERPASSEDON25.4.1995WASONLY with regard to stay of dispossession. It, in no way, interfered with or stayed further proceedings in the matter of acquisition of land in question in these proceedings. As such, there is no difficulty in making of the award. As stated above, no award has been made in this case. (10) Counsel for the respondent has attempted to argue that taking of possession is an important part of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. To our mind, the provision of Section 16 of the Act make it clear that making of an award is a condition precedent to the taking of possession and until an award is made, possession cannot be taken of any land. (11) In the instant case, there is no assertion that provisions of Section 17 have been invoked and possession was taken on account of urgency. In this view of the matter, the award not having been made within the period stipulated by the Statute, the notification concerning acquisition of Khasra Numbers 127 and 173 has to b...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Iron Exchange (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT397TriDel

1. Being aggrieved with the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, allowing the respondent's appeal the Revenue has filed this appeal. Respondents vide their letter dated 79-5-1996 has sought disposed of the department's appeal on merits. Accordingly we heard the learned SDR Shri A.K. Madan for the appellant Collector.2. The issue involved in the said appeal is the classification of 'polystyrene co-polymer Beads' manufactured by the respondent. The manufacturer has claimed the classification of the said product as under sub-heading 3903.10 read with exemption Notification No.133/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 whereas the Revenue's contention is that the goods are correctly classifiable under the residuary sub-heading 3903.90 and eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 132/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. On the above basis, the respondent was served with a show cause notice dated 14-12-1987 raising a demand of duty of Rs. 1,00,126.60 for the period Sep...

Collector of Customs Vs. Rama Krishna X-ray Institute

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC147Tri(Delhi)

1. Both these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-11-1987 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants seek classification of Image Intensified and Television System consisting of Hi-Performance Image Tube, housing, solid state power supply, Collimating lens, 625 line TV Camera and TV Monitor, etc. under Customs Tariff Heading 9022.90. Revenue is in appeal against Collector (Appeals) Order holding the main imaging equipment as classifiable under 90.22 and ordering the assessment of other parts and accessories under their respective tariff headings. Revenue seeks to classify the entire system as video-reproducing apparatus classifiable under Heading 85.21.2. Arguing for the importer appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that the equipment imported is essentially an apparatus based on use of X-Rays and accompanied by items like TV Cameras and Monitors, which are specially designed to work as parts of the equipment for image intensification. He draws our attenti...

Collector of Customs Vs. Southern Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT694TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal, dated 30-9-1986, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The respondents are M/s. Southern Sea Foods Pvt.Ltd., Madras (hereinafter referred to as the 'SSF'). The matter relates to the Customs' valuation. It was alleged in the show cause notice, dated 25-11-1985 that SSF, their Indenting Agents and their Adviser had collectively acted in collusion and had mis-declared the value of the consignment of the goods imported. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had held that on the basis of the evidence relied upon the Department, there was no justification for either enhancing the value of the goods imported for assessment to customs duty, or for imposing any fine.2. M/s. SSF had imported Mild Steel Galvanised Low Carbon Defective Sheets in Coil form ('sheets' for short) from M/s. K. Tarnura & Co., Osaka, Japan (Japanese suppliers) vide Bill of Entry, dated 20-8-1985, at the port of Madras. T...

Continental Devices India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT577TriDel

1. The Appeal No. E/814/94-NRB is against the order dated 7-1-1994 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. The other Appeal is against the order dated 25-3-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner MOD-HI, New Delhi holding that Photomasks, Fused Quartzware, Graphite Jigs are not eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the manufacture of the final products of the appellants namely Transistors and Diodes. In the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi he had confirmed the demand for Rs. 3,26,375.82 and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants. Period of demand on all the inputs is from 12-6-1988 to 19-1-1990, in the case of photomasks from 22-10-1988 to 31-1-1990. In the case of Graphite Jigs from 22-10-1988 to 31-1-1990 and in the case of Fused Quartzware is form 31-3-1989 to 15-3-1990. The case of the ...

indira Gupta Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant bought a new Maruti Van No. DL 4CA 5574 in May, 91. She got a comprehensive insurance for the period 23.5.91 to 17.1.92. Contrary to the usual practice of obtaining insurance for one year, insurance was taken upto 17.1.92 to coincide with expiry of date of insurance of another vehicle DDD 5743 owned by the complainant. It slipped out of the mind of the complainant that the period of insurance expired in Jan.,92 and she remained under the impression that since the van was purchased in May, 91, the insurance taken was good upto May, 92. The insurance was not renewed in Jan., 92. However, in June, 92 the complainant again approached the opposite party to renew the insurance and gave a cheque for Rs. 3,386/- dated 10.6.92 on account of premium. For reasons, which are not material for the present purposes, the cheque was not encashed. The complainant remained busy with a marriage in the family and ultimately got t...

Dhanalakshmi 'B' Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector Of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT149TriDel

1. Arguing for the appellants; Shri G. Shivadas, learned Advocate submitted that two issues are involved in the instant case. He submitted that to what extent duty is to be paid in respect of the spun yarn in terms of Rule 49A and whether value of 'Dharmada' is to be added to the finished products, i.e., fabrics. He submitted that in respect of the cellulosic spun yarn as in the instant case, duty is payable at the appropriate duty plus one and a half per cent of the duty payable on such cellulosic spun yarn. He referred to the relevant Rule 49A(1) and (2) which reads as under :- "(1) When the cotton fabrics are cleared grey (unprocessed), the yarn duty payable shall be - (a) the appropriate duty payable on such cellulosic spun yarn or cotton yarn, or both, as the case may be; plus (b) one and a half per cent of the duty payable on such cellulosic spun yarn or cotton yarn, or both, as the case may be, by way of interest on the amount of yarn duty; (2) When the cotton fabrics are clear...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT163TriDel

1. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 27-1-1986 passed by the ld. Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding dutiability of Electric Motors falling under Tariff Item 30 of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff manufactured and captively consumed in the manufacture of power driven pumps.2. The assessee had filed classification List No. 16/79-80 in respect of Electric Motors falling under Tariff Item 30 of Central Excise Tariff with a remark 'Duty on Electric Motor' (used in P.D. Pumps) to be said at the time of clearance of pumps.3. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 12-5-1980 held that clearance of electric motors took place when it was taken for captive consumption, hence the assessee should pay duty on the electric motors before these were used for the manufacture of pumps and accordingly approved the classification list. On appeal to Collector (Appeals) by the assessee, the ld. Collector (Appeals) rev...

Brij Lal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)59ITD1(Delhi)

1. The assessee has filed an application praying for restoration of the above captioned appeal decided ex parte vide out order dated 16-11-1993.2. It has been stated in the application that the said appeal was decided without the representation by the assessee's counsel to whom the notice of hearing was delivered but the same got misplaced in his office. It has further been stated that the counsel was busy in the marriage arrangement of his daughter and the date of hearing could not be noted in his diary. The assessee has enclosed a certificate from his counsel, Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, to the above effect. It has also been submitted that in a similar matter in the assessee's brother's case, the appeal was heard and the similar addition was deleted by this Tribunal. A copy of the said order is also enclosed.3. At the time of hearing of this Misc. Application, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the matter. In v...

Hans Raj Vs. A.N. Gulati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT467; 1996(39)DRJ339

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the land- lords/petitioners against the order dated 2.9.94 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi upholding the objection of the tenant filed after the expiry of the term of limited tenancy granted by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and dismissing the petition of the petitioners for the recovery of possession by holding that the permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as void.(2) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:- (3) It is alleged by the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of the property bearing No.C-204A Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi. The petitioners have been staying at Thailand for the last few years. The elder brother of the petitioners, who is otherwise attorney of the petitioners, had been living in the said house and on account of his having built his own house, he shifted to his house in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi making th...