Delhi Court November 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.
Somani Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT393TriDel
1. Appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad upholding the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Kanpur. By his said order-in-original, the Assistant Commissioner had ordered recovery of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 40,650/- availed by the appellant which was held to be not admissible to them. In addition, penalty of Rs. 5,000/-was imposed.This order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) on appeal by the appellant leading to the present appeal.2. Shri Amit Awasthi, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Modvat credit in question had been disallowed and the amount recovered from them only on the ground that they had taken the credit on the strength of duplicate copy of the invoice printed in white colour issued by the dealer from whom they had purchased the material in question. Central Board of Excise & Customs had issued Notification No.23/95-C.E. (N.T.) pres...
Shishu Pal Singh Chauhan Vs. Secretary (Labour), Govt. of N.C.T. of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)738; 69(1997)DLT992
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. When this case came up for consideration on 29th August, 1997, Mr. Anil Gover accepted notice for respondent No.1 and Mr. Tarun Sharma accepted notice for respondent No. 2. The respondents were directed to file counter-affidavit within four weeks. Respondent No. l has filed counteraffidavit. Respondent No. 2 has not filed any counter-affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no reply is required in response to the counter-affidavit of respondent 1. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 29.8.1997 Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has brought the relevant files to the Court. I have perused the files and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent No. 2. 2. Admittedly the impugned order Annexure A dated 19.10.l995 transferring the case from Labour Court IV to Labour Court VII was passed by respondent No.1 on the basis of a representation made by respondent No. 2, the manag...
Shabar Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)362; 75(1998)DLT93; 1999(48)DRJ287
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) It appears that on 19th December, 1978 the present petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents claiming himself to be in possession of plot No.41 measuring 650 square yards in the Laldora in Village Shaipur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Shalimar Garden. The petitioner claimed therein to be in possession of the said plot of land. He obtained an ex parte injunction order against the respondents and later on the suit was decreed in his favour. This was on 30th September, 1989. However, after the decree a Kalandara was filed. To be precise, this was on 11th December, 1989. It was alleged therein that the present petitioner had taken forcible possession of the plot in question and that there was imminent apprehension of breach of peace. Consequent thereupon orders were passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 and Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Con...
Walia Engineering Associates P. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)(59)ECC407
1. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Steam Boilers which were classified under Tariff Item 68 upto 1-3-1986 and thereafter under chapter heading 84 of the new Tariff. Consequent on investigation carried out by the Central Excise Officers it was held; that the appellants have evaded duty to the extent of Rs. 12,90,145.59 on the ground that M/s. Boiler Tech Engg. and M/s. Engineering Associates were two dummy units of the Appellants. These units did not have their independent manufacturing premises and had not in fact manufactured any boilers. The boilers sold in the name of the units were in fact manufactured by Walia Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Collector of Central Excise adjudicating the case came to the conclusion that clearance value of M/s. Engineering Associates had to be added to the clearance value of M/s. Walia Engineering Associates. In regard to the Boiler Tech.Engineers, however, he held that they had correctly enjoyed the exemption under Notification 46/81 and 77/83. The Co...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT94TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the assembly of tea chests from unassembled Tea Chests by the respondent M/s. Nelliampathy Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. The Collector Central Excise (Appeals), Madras had held that the assembly of Tea Chests from unassembled Tea Chests by the tea factory could not be taken as a process of manufacture. The matter relates to the period from 1-3-1986 to 2-4-1986. On 3-4-1986 Notification No. 227/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 was issued under which the articles of wood falling under Tariff Hdg.No. 4410.90 of the new Central Excise Tariff were eligible for exemption. In appeal the Revenue had contended that the assembly of Tea Chests from plywood panels was definitely a manufacturing process involving use of nails, aluminium foils etc. and that the plywood panels and Tea Chests are different in name, use, character and also the value.2. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Srivastva, JDR appearing for the appellant Revenue. On behalf of responden...
Shushila Steel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT237TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether Modvat credit will be admissible on Metal Rolls and Lubricated Oil.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flat rolled products of non-alloy steel falling under Chapter sub-headings 7214.90 & 7211.19 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the checking of the RT-12 for the month of October, 1994, the Central Excise Officers found that the appellant had taken Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 45,248.00 on the strength of invoices issued by various parties. The Department alleged that these invoices have not been issued in the prescribed form under Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 and Notification No. 33/94-C.E.(N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 inasmuch as they did not contain complete information as per Sl. No. 4 of the said Form annexed to the Notification and, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the Appellants asking them to explain as to why the Mo...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hozur Instruments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT131TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the Order-in-Appeal dated 18-3-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras is under challenge. The matter relates to the classification of the goods imported which had been described in the Bill of Entry as calibration source. The goods were originally assessed to the customs duty under Heading No. 90.22 which covered the apparatus based on the use of X-rays or of Alpha, Beta or Gamma radiations, whether or not for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary uses including radiography or radiotherapy apparatus, X-ray tubes and other X-ray generators, high tension generators, control panels and desks, screens, examination or treatment tables, chairs and the like. The importers requested for re-assessment on the ground that the calibration source imported by them worked on the principle of heat produced by resistence to electric current and should have been classified under sub-heading No. 8514.10.Heading No. 85.14 covered industrial or laboratory...
Dharam Construction Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)572; 1998(44)DRJ478
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Objections have been filed by the respondent/DDA to the award dated 12.4.1994 passed by the Arbitrator. Ms.Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the DDA has contended that award suffers from various infirmities. She has contended that the Arbitrator has acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. She has also contended that no reasons have been given by the Arbitrator to arrive at the findings on different claims. 2. She has contended that finding of the Arbitrator in so far as claim no.3 is concerned, the said award is contrary to the conditions of the contract. She has contended that the Arbitrator has awarded escalation under Clause 10 cc of the Agreement without considering that no escalation under Clause 10 cc ought to have been awarded in favor of the petitioner, if contract has not been validly extended under Clause 5 and action under Clause 2 of the agreement has been taken. In support of her objection she has cited 199...
Krishan Murari Gupta Vs. Hemant Kumar Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)655; 69(1997)DLT1042; (1998)118PLR10
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.97 of the Additional District Judge, granting leave to defend the Suit, subject to the condition that petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 within four weeks failing which the application for leave to defend, would be dismissed and the suit shall stand decreed. (2) The respondent had instituted a Suit for recovery of Rs. 4,30,000.00 Along with pendentelite and future interest. The respondents, who are jewellers,claimed in the Suit that the petitioners had purchased jewellery items worth Rs.2,50,000.00 vide bills No. 005 and 006 both dated 5.2.1994, and acknowledged the receipt of the jewels on the copy of the bills. The petitioners had issued 5 cheques of Rs. 50,000.00 each bearing Nos. 544251 to 544255 dated 5.2.94,20.2.94, 7.3.94,21.3.94 and 25.4.94 respectively. The said cheques were dishonoured. The respondent/plaintiff thereupon, after issuing the notice filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negoti...
Wockhardt Limited Vs. Dua Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 72(1998)DLT111; 1998(44)DRJ408
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This order shall dispose of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 as well as I.A. No.836/94 in Suit No. 208/94.(2) The plaintiff seeks ad-interim injunction for restraining defendants, their servants, stockists, distributors, agents and retailers etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned trade mark 'SPASMA PROXY-N' and its deceptive carton and blister packs or from using any trade mark/marks and/or cartons which are identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark 'SPASMO PROXYV ON' and further from doing any other thing as is likely to lead to passing-off its goods and business as the goods and business of the plaintiffs.(3) According to the plaintiffs version the plaintiff company is a limited company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the suit has been filed by Shri M. Mirza its duly constituted attorney vide Power of A...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »