Delhi Court September 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.
Tata Oil Mills Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT463TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 125/87 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin directing assessable value of uncompressed Oxygen gas manufactured and supplied by appellants to M/s. West Coast Industrial Gases Limited during the period November, 1977 to June, 1983 to be determined under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act) by adding the amount of licence fee to the declared price and directing the differential duty to be determined.2. The appellants, at the factory premises in Cochin manufacture uncompressed Oxygen as by-product and entered into an agreement dated 20-6-1975 with M/s. West Coast Industrial Gases Limited for use by the latter of the uncompressed gas to be supplied by the appellants in the manufacture of compressed gas subject to certain conditions such as, manufacture should be in a part of the same premises, a part of the compressed gas to be supplied to the appellants and payment of month...
Collector of Customs Vs. Modi Plastics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT393TriDel
1. This is a Revenue Appeal, which arises from order passed by Collector (Appeals), Calcutta vide Order dated 18-4-1987. The ld.Collector has upheld the importers contention that the imported double screw twin extruder functions more effectively than a single screw of a double dimension and the diameter of the twin screw is about 180MM, which is more than the requirement of 150MM diameter in terms of S. No.14 of Notification No. 40/78. In this regard, ld. Collector has also taken into consideration the international understanding of plastic screw over 150MM dia. as per the scheme of GATT. The Revenue is aggrieved with this order. Hence, they filed this appeal.2. It is noticed that the Collector of Customs, Calcutta has merely issued a letter of authority whereby he has authorised Sh. N.C. Rai, Asstt. Collector, Divisional Cell, Calcutta, to file an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. This letter of authority does not indicate that Collector has independently...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT230TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the availment of deemed Modvat credit in respect of the inputs - M.S.Rounds/Flats/wire and other forged items of iron and steel purchased from the open market when used in the manufacture of motor cycle parts and other items falling under Heading Nos. 87.14, 83.13 and 72.03 of the Central Excise Tariff as in force from 28-2-1986. The respondent M/s. Bajaj Sons (P) Ltd., Ludhiana had taken the deemed credit on the above mentioned inputs, which they had purchased from the open market, at the rate of Rs. 365 per M.T. They have taken deemed credit on the understanding that such credit was allowed under Ministry's Order No.B22/5/86/TRU dated 7-4-1986 issued under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 30-4-1987 alleging that while taking deemed credit on the inputs they had not given proper description relating to those inputs had not submitted the proper documents or a...
Ashok Malik Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT480TriDel
1. The above application for rectification of mistake has been filed by the Revenue on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in holding in its final order that provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 have not been invoked either in the Panchnama or in the show cause notice or the adjudication order issued to the appellants. The factual position is that Section 123 has been invoked in para 25(iii) of the show cause notice and in para 43(iii) of the adjudication order. The Tribunal had held that since the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 had not been invoked, the burden of proving that the goods in question namely Zip Fasteners were smuggled, was on the department and that the burden had not been discharged in the above case.2. The learned DR Shri Jehangir Singh submits that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the burden of proof lies on the department and in this connection, he refers to the relevant paragraphs in the show cause notice and the adjudication ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Aggarwal Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT811TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the seizure had been affected from M/s. Aggarwal Steel Industries who were not the manufacturer of the goods seized. They had received circles, and the other goods which Revenue treated as strips but the manufacturer from whom M/s. Aggarwal Steel Industries had purchased the goods, as 'patta/patti'. There was also some scrap which has arisen when the circles and 'patta/patti' were processed to produce utensils by the respondents. Some utensils were also seized. The case of the Revenue is that the goods received were strips classifiable under Item No. 25(12) of the Tariff while the goods had been classified by the manufacturer from whom the said respondents had purchased, under Item No. 25(8). They had availed of the exemption which was available to the goods falling under Item No.25(8) of the Tariff. The Collecter of Central Excise Appeals has observed that the appellants (respondents before us) had claimed that what they have brought was stainle...
Naresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)235; 64(1996)DLT321; 2003(39)DRJ480
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This petition is directed against the respondents to carry out the legal obligation as is cast upon them under Section 188 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by circulating the four Resolutions and include them in the agenda for Annual General Meeting which is scheduled to be held on September 30, 1996, which were forwarded to respondent No.2 on August 12,1996. The said communication reads as under: 'TO The Company Secretary, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhel House, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110049 Dear Sir, Sub : Submission of resolutions for the the ensuing annual general body meeting of share holders of the company Please find enclosed herewith, as Annexure I, four resolutions (along with required explanatory statements) which I intend to move on my own behalf and also on behalf of a number of other share holders of the company at the ensuing Annual General Body Meeting (AGM) of the company. Vide their letters dated 25.7.96, sharehold...
Dhir Singh Chhima Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT295
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) -THESE two petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a single order since the same relate to same series of events and raise almost identical questions on different aspects pertaining to the petitioner. (2) In Civil Writ No. 1137/95, the petitioner has sought a direction for quashing of furtherroceedings, which are in progress, in pursuance to the issuance of tentative charge sheet (Annexure-P-6) on the ground that further progress in the case against the petitioner is without jurisdiction since charges have become time barred under Section 122 of the Army Act and that the petitioner has ceased to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Army Act. The ancillary reliefs claimed are to direct the respondents not to compel the petitioner to move to Meerut, in any manner, either to face proceedings or otherwise, since the proceedings against the petitioner have been rendered without jurisdiction. (3) In the other writ petition (CIVIL WRITNo. 3768/94), the petitioner ...
Prem Aggarwal Vs. Harpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(39)DRJ509
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Sections 33 and 37(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') praying that the arbitration clause contained in agreement to sell dated 6th March, 1987 be declared to be of no effect and valid for the purpose of deciding the disputes between the parties under the said agreement to sell and to order that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have any bearing with reference to the differences/disputes.(2) Under the agreement to sell, the petitioner agreed to purchase property being flat No.140, First Floor, Dda Flats, East of Kailash, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs.6,80,000.00 , out of which a sum of Rs.30,000.00 was to be the earnest money. The petitioner was also to pay unearned increase and/or other charges that might be demanded by the Delhi Development Authority for grant of permission to transfer the said flat in her favour. The petitioner was to get possession of the flat only on the payment of the full price a...
theeta Industrial Heating Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. Harvinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)433; 65(1997)DLT30; 1996(39)DRJ739; 1997RLR31
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This regular first appeal by the defendant arises out of judgment and decree passed on 6.7.1995 by Shri B.S. Mathur, Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of premises known as 487/79, Peera Garhi, Delhi as shown in the site plan, Ext. Public Witness 1/1 and for recovery of Rs.42,350.00 as arrears of rent w.e.f. 1,8.1992 to 30.6.1993 at the rate of Rs.3,850.00 per month, subject to adjustment of the rent, if any paid by defendant-appellant during the pendency of the suit or security paid, if any, and a decree for damages for unauthorised use and occupation from 1.7.1993 till delivery of possession at the rate of Rs.20,000.00 p.m. (2) The defendant was let out a portion of the suit premises by Shri Pritpal Singh, the father of the plaintiff at a rental of Rs.l,350.00 p.m. through lease deed dated 30.9.1976. On additional portion being let out, the rent was enhanced to Rs.2,800.00 p.m. On the death of Pritpal S...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT248TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras has filed this reference application under Section 35G(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) seeking reference to the jurisdictional High Court of the following questions of law :- (i) In the context of Modvat credit, the procedure of taking credit as enumerated under Rule 57G follows the determination of eligibility of credit as set out under Rules 57A, 57C and 57E . As such the criterion of allowing credit (by way of adjustment) as per Rule 57E takes precedence over the process under Rule 57G. Whether in this above regard, the Honourable Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Rule 57E is merely clarificatory in nature to Rule 57G (ii) Honourable Tribunal have held that Notification No. 117/87, dated 15-4-1987 as well as other Notifications issued under Rule 57E are clarificatory in nature and hence would have retrospective effect. On the one hand, it is held that the condition of six months limit vide Notific...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »