Delhi Court October 1997 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.
Jagdish Chandra Trikha Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)753; AIR1998Delhi266; 4(1996)CLT513; [2000]100CompCas839(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT874
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The plaintiff moved this Court in December 1977 for permission to file the suit as an indigent person under the provisions of Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court granted permission by order dated 22/03/1982. The plaintiff, as a consequence, filed a suit for recovery of Gold ornaments weighing 480 Tolas i.e. 5596.80 grammes deposited in safe deposit box under receipt No. 17/47 dated 3/06/1947 with the defendant .Bank or in the alternative for the price thereof amounting to Rs. 3,72,400. The plaint was subsequently amended and the plaintiff claimed recovery of the gold ornaments/jewellery or price there of as on the date of the judgment/decree in the suit.(2) The brief facts of the case are that late Rai Sahib Mool Chand,father of the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 and husband of Smt. Washeshran Devi, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 but was deleted by the Court's order as she had expired during the pendency of the suit was an eminent civ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Golden Chemicals Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT509TriDel
1. The issue relates to the quantity discount. The Assistant Collector has rejected the claim of the party on the ground that copy of the Scheme of quantity discount was not produced. On an appeal filed by the party, the Collector being satisfied with the claim of the assessee on seeing Part II price list, allowed the appeal on the ground that Trade discount was permissible.2. Not being satisfied with the finding given by the Collector (Appeals), the department has come before us by way of this appeal.Shri Srivastava reiterated the grounds taken by the department and submitted that since the copy of the Scheme introducing quantity discount scheme in the Part II price, the Assistant Collector was right in disallowing quantity discount claimed by the assessee. He also urged that the quantity discount claimed by the assessee varies from contract to contract and no exact cut off point of quantity or any scheme has been introduced in the quantity discount.3. We have carefully considered th...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Tubular Bag Manufacturing Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT481TriDel
1. This appeal from Revenue was argued by Shri Satnam Singh, Senior Departmental Representative. The Respondents were represented by Shri K.S. Ramabadran, learned Advocate.2. As narrated in the order-in-appeal, the appellants manufactured flat woven fabric out of polyester yarn under sub-heading 5504.29. The width of the fabric was 858 mm with selvages at intervals of 210 mm. This was to facilitate separating the entire width into 4 strips. The weaving was such that the fabrics were composed of two layers which fabric cut at required intervals produced fabric of tubular configuration. The fabrics were later dipped into PH Resin and used as separaters in electric batteries. The assessee had claimed classification under Heading 5507.00 for the woven fabric and under Heading 5903.29 for the coated fabric. However, under protest they filed a classification list for the woven fabric under Heading 5806.00. The Assistant Collector confirmed the classification of the woven fabric under Headin...
Delhi Cloth Mills Limited Vs. Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)565; 71(1998)DLT70; 1997(43)DRJ525
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is an application filed by the petitioner for directions to the Receiver to proceed against all ex-employees of the petitioner company who are in occupation of the quarters which they have not so far vacated pursuant to this Court's judgment dated 1.10.1993 which has since been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (2) Ms. Asha Jain Madan, counsel for M/s D.K. Sudan and Dr. B.D.Kaushal submitted that the cases of these persons who happen to be senior executives in companies of the group covered by scheme of arrangement sanctioned by this Court under Sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, are quite distinct and different. As such it was decided to hear these persons separately. The facts giving rise to the controversy are as under :- (3) A textile mill under the name and style of Delhi Cloth Mills was set up in the year 1889 on a land area of about 63 acres of which the mill complex was occupying 24 acres and a little over 42 acres was used to put up a resident...
Li Galina Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)717; 70(1997)DLT464; 1997(43)DRJ522
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This petition has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Ms.Li Galina, Ms.Sakirova Elmira and Ms.Ismailova Gulbahar challenging their preventive detention under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short `the Act'). Briefly, the facts are these: (2) The Lt.Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Act, in terms of the order of detention dated 8th November, 1996 directed the detention of the petitioners with a view to prevent them from smuggling goods. The facts and material on the basis of which the detention order was made have been noticed in detail in the grounds on which the detention order has been made and for the present purposes, it is not necessary to notice the said facts. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the material placed on record the Lt.Governor arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioners hav...
Universal Electrodes P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT134TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 40,326/- on welding electrodes admittedly cleared by the appellants without payment of duty in November, 1994 and has imposed a penalty of a like amount under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has also confiscated the electrodes seized from the factory, with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine. He has also confiscated 3 Matadors which were seized on 12-9-1994 and since they were not available for confiscation, he has enforced bank guarantees against the liability of the redemption fine on these matadors.2. Learned Counsel Shri K.K. Anand submits that the appellants do not contest the duty liability; however, in view of the fact that by letter dated 27-4-1995, the appellants had only given up their right to receive the show cause notice for levy of duty, they were entitled to a notice for confiscation and imp...
Dr. Beck and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT275TriDel
1. The appellant imported a consignment of refined glycerine TG 99% minimum from Bangladesh and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification 252/90 fixing the concessional rate of duty of 45% on goods falling under 1520.10 and 1520.90. The former sub-heading as applicable to the Notification covered only crude glycerine. The Department issued demand for differential duty holding that the benefit availed of by them was not applicable to refined glycerine as the benefit of the Notification was applicable in respect of goods falling under Tariff Heading 1520.10 to only crude glycerine. The amount was paid under protest by the appellants. After the case was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector and their appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected, the present appeal has been filed.2. Arguing the case of the appellant, Ms. Tamali Wad, learned Counsel submitted that the Notification covers not only crude glycerine falling under Tariff sub-heading 1520.10 but also other goods of...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Associated Plumbings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT269TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commr. (Appeals), Central Excise. In the impugned order, the Commr.(Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and held that the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit on the brass scrap though in the declaration, it was declared as copper scrap.2. Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant Commr. submitted that claiming under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the assessee is required to give the description of the inputs intended to be used in the manufacture of the final product. He submitted that correct and full description of the inputs is essential and not merely producing the tariff description. He submits that Section Note and Chapter Note are relevant for the classification of the rules under Central Excise Tariff and these notes are not in consideration while determining the benefit under Modvat scheme. He therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.3. Heard Sh...
Elecktro Controls Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT541TriDel
1. In this case, Modvat credit of Rs. 3,65,006.24 p. has been disallowed to the appellants herein on the ground that the inputs on which this amount of duty was paid and taken as credit, were not described in detail in the declaration filed in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants are manufacturers of Control panels and Rectifiers falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing credit on duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. In the declaration, they had declared various inputs such as Switchgears, Starters, Pilot lamp holders and other switchgear material falling under sub-heading 8536.90 and Boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets etc. under sub-heading 8537.00.2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 22-4-1993 alleging that certain inputs had not been specifically declared and therefore, the credit availed on these items such as Miniature Circuit...
Shree Ajudhia Sugar Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT381TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commr. (Appeals), Central Excise, dated 27-2-1997. In the impugned order, the benefit of Modvat credit was denied on pipes and tubes on the ground that they are not covered by the term 'capital goods' 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar. He further submits that the appellants have filed the necessary declaration in respect of brass pipes and in the declaration, they have mentioned that brass pipes are parts of machinery. He submits that these pipes are parts of machiney i.e. Quad Body used in boiling the cane juice for manufacturing of V.P. sugar. In the Quad Body, the concentration of juice takes place for production of V.P. White Sugar from cane juice.It is most essential part without which concentration of juice is not possible and hence the question of manufacturing of V.P. White sugar does not arise. He submits tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »