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.
Raj Khurana Vs. Bhagwan Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)197
ORDERK.S.Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed the suit inter alias alleging that property bearing No. C-1/19, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi was acquired by his grand father Goda Ram against the claims of the properties left in Pakistan. Goda Ram expired on July 1, 1961 intestate leaving behind his widow Smt. Bhagwanti Devi (defendant No.2) and three sons Bhagat Raj Khurana, Bhagwan Dass and Hari Krishan Khurana, (defendants 1 and 3). Plaintiff is the son of Bhagat Raj Khurana, who died in 1990. He has thus 1/4th share in the aforesaid property. Defendants have refused to partition the property by metes and bounds. It was prayed that a decree of partition in respect of the aforementioned property may be passed. By a decree of permanent injunction defendants are further sought to be restrained from disposing of the property and dispossessing the plaintiff from the portion shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint.2. Along with the plaint I.A. 7951/95 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 re...
Delkon India Private Limited Vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)644; 1997(2)ARBLR628(Delhi); [1998]93CompCas106(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT491; 1997(43)DRJ567
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking to restrain the respondent M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (for short the BHEL), from encashing and receiving any amount under the bank guarantee No. Bom/60/236 dated 24 July 1996 in the sum of Rs. 7,86,750.00 issued on behalf of the petitioner by the Bank of Baroda, India Exchange Place, Calcutta, in favor of the BHEL. (2) The facts relevant to the controversy involved are as follows; (3) The respondent Bhel, a Public Sector Undertaking, for the purpose of executing a contract awarded to it by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (for short the NTPC), awarded a sub-contract to the petitioner for erection, testing, commissioning and trial operation of 2X210 Mw Boilers, Part B at Fgtpp, Unchahar, ST-2, District Rai Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, and issued a letter of intent dated 21 June 1996, in favor of the petitioner, which was re...
Brindavan Agro Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT284TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellants have agitated against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner who in his order dated 24-4-1995 had at one stage held that "No doubt the point putforth by the party would lend one to think like-wise" and proceeded further to decide the issue on a ground stating that 'In conclusion, Modvat credits of duty paid on plastic crates, the secondary packing of the product Coca Cola "Aerated Water", is not admissible and therefore demands raised in this regard is maintainable'.2. Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that a show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the plastic crates are not the inputs in the manufacture of aerated water. He submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and used plastic crates for transporting aerated water bottles from the factory to the wholesale market. He ...
Dixon Utilities and Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT286TriDel
1. Shri R. Swaminathan, the ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants in the instant case, at the outset, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the Miscellaneous Application No. E/Misc/515/97-NB. Shri P.K.Jain, the ld. SDR, submits that once an application is filed and was argued, it should be decided finally.2. Heard. Considered. Since the applicant has sought permission to withdraw the miscellaneous application, we accept the request for withdrawal. The Miscellaneous Application No. E/Misc/515/97-NB is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.3. Arguing on the stay application, Shri R. Swaminathan, the ld.Consultant submitted that the only dispute in their case was about the date of publication of the Notification No. 76/95. The ld. Consultant referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 3-12-1993 in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein it was held that: "In this case we issued notice limited in the first instance to the que...
Crazy Candies and Sweets P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT361TriDel
1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 95,653.50, learned Counsel, Shri Gopal Prasad submits that credit of this amount has been denied on two counts, (i) a sum of Rs. 74,623.50 has been denied on 4 invoices for the reason that they were not marked as "duplicate for transporter" but were only marked as "carrier copy" and (ii) credit of Rs. 21,030/- has been denied on the ground that the 5 invoices on the strength of which this credit has been taken were not clearly marked as duplicate copy for transporter as they were simply marked by pen. It is not the proper way of marking as per Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules. Learned Counsel submits that the carrier copy means nothing other than duplicate for transporters because a carrier is transporter and, therefore, this amount of credit has been rightly availed. Regarding the amount covered at Sl. No. (ii) above, he submits that when the invoice contained the marking - "original for buyer", "duplicate for transpo...
Polyset Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT619TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17-1-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals)'. The issue involved is the correct classification of Standard Bowl which is a component of Filtering machine.2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Counsel submits that Air filters are classifiable under Heading 84.21. HSN notes at page 1181 exclude Filter funnels, milk strainers, vessels, tanks etc. simply equipped with metallic gauze or other straining material or general purpose vessels, tanks etc. even if intended for use as filters after insertion of layer of gravel, sand charcoal etc. Once they are held to be not classifiable under Heading 84.21, they have to be assessed as articles of plastic of Chapter 39. The learned DR countering this argument submits the Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI makes it clear that such parts have to go as parts of the finished product and finished product would be assessable to duty only under Heading 84.21.What is exc...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT507TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of clean flo chemical used for removing deposits from the cooling coil of the air conditioning system, is allowed to the appellant.2. Shri Nair, JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Clean Flo was used for cleaning removing of deposits from the cooling coil from the air conditioning system for maintaining the process conditions. This clean flo cannot be said to be input used in or in relation to production of final product. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kanoria Sugar & Gen. Mfg. Co. Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 522 and submits that in this case Modvat credit in respect of lubricants and greases used merely for better operation of the machinery were denied.He submits that applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal, t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fibre Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT618TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 12-7-1989. The appellants claim classification of Compensating Cables under CTH 9033.00. The Assistant Collector however, held that goods are classifiable under Heading 8544.2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned DR submits that these Compensating cables can also be considered as wires and cables as these goods also measure temperature. The only difference between the electric wires and cables the impugned goods is that the former are made of comparatively cheaper material whereas Compensating cables are required to be made of alloy to match the characteristics of cable wires used. The respondents are not present but they have submitted written submissions.3. We have heard the learned DR and perused the records of the case.Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Tariff Advice 6/82, dated 19-1-1982 while considering the classification of compensating cables under two competing Entries 33B as Electric wire and cab...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Volga Fabricators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT270TriDel
1. This is a revenue appeal arising from order in Collector's Appeal dated 28-7-1989 by which he has held that the product namely 'evaporative air cooler and body thereof is classifiable under Tariff Heading 8479.00 which covers 'Machines and Mechanical appliances' having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter as against the classification adopted by the Asstt. Collector under Heading 84.15 which covers 'Air conditioning machines'. In this regard ld. Collector has examined HSN Explanatory Notes at page 1163 to hold that the air cooler cannot be considered as Air Conditioners. The air coolers are also known as desert coolers.2. We have heard ld. DR. The respondents were not present but they have sent the written submissions by which they have relied on the Board's Circular No. 27/90-CEX, dated 18-7-1990 and also Madurai Collectorate Trade Notice No. 100/90, dated 22-8-1990 which has been published in 1990 (49) E.L.T. T93 by which the Board has directed...
Tata Robins Fraser Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT755TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by the appellants involving common issue and therefore, they are clubbed and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants M/s. Tata Robins Fraser Limited manufactured machinery items falling under Tariff Item 68 in their factory at Jamshedpur. They undertake construction of projects on contract basis. These contracts include civil and structural work, supply of ma- chinery and equipment, their erection and installation etc. Machinery and equipment required for the execution of their work are partly manufactured in their own factory at Jamshedpur and partly procured in the market. They also get certain items manufactured in other factories as per specifications raw material supplied by them. For the execution of the contracts they had cleared machinery items from their factory at Jamshedpur on payment of duty. According to the department, the goods falling under T.I. 68 which are cleared in knock...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »