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.
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT515TriDel
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Karbate Tubes of artificial graphite impregnated with phenolic resin which are part of heat exchanger are classifiable under sub-heading 6815.10 as held by the department or under sub-heading 8419.50 as claimed by the importer, is the point referred to us for decision.2. The appeal in the instant case relates to classification of goods imported during the months of May, June and September, 1992 against four Bills of Entry. The admitted position is that the imported goods are for heat exchangers and are made of artificial graphite impregnated with phenolic resins.3. Shri N.R. Khaitan, learned Advocate appears for the appellants. Shri M.C. Sharma, learned CDR represents the Revenue.4. It was pleaded by the appellants that the case was fully covered in their favour by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Limited [1995 (75) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.)].5. The issue for decision before the Apex Court was 'W...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Utility Engineers (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT452TriDel
1. This is a Department's appeal filed with reference to the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi dated 8-6-1987.2. It appears that a notice was issued to the respondents by the Registry but neither any appearance has been caused nor there is any other communication requesting for adjournment or otherwise. In the circumstances, we have gone through the records and heard learned Departmental Representative.3. Learned DR stated that the respondents are manufacturers of Refrigeration and Air-conditioning appliances. They had availed concession under Notification No. 56/78, dated 1-3-1978 and supplied six window type air- conditioners 1.5 ton each to M/s. U.P.S.E.B.(Electricity Microwave Telecommunication station at Sultanpur) at concessional rate of 25% B.E.D. and 5% S.E.D. against CT-2 issued by the Supdt, Central Excise, Sultanpur on 11-7-1983 as per details as under :- (i) 2 Nos. vide AR-3A S. No. 10, dated 11-7-1983 vide GP-I No. 66, dated 11-7-1983 to sub-station at Goniganj. (ii...
M.C.D. Vs. Inder Raj Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ272
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi who while accepting appeal of the respondents has, inter alia, fixed the ratable value of the property bearing No. 10196/65, M.M. Road, Motia Khan, Delhi.2. The respondents are joint owners of the property bearing No 10196/65, M.M. Road, Motia Khan, Delhi and the same was assessed at a ratable value of Rs. 36,740/- for the year 1978-79. It appears that the respondents let out the first and second floors of the property at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,712.10 with effect from 1.10.1978 and the basement at Rs 6,000/- per month with effect from 1.2.1979. Consequently, the Assessing Authority issued notice (Annexure A) to the respondents proposing a ratable value of Rs. 1,58,350/- for the year 1978-79. Objections (Annexure B) were filed against the proposed enhancement of the ratable value. On 24.9.1982, the Assessing Authority passed the order (Annexure C) revising the ratable value...
Madan Lal JaIn Vs. Saroj Sarpal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1012; 71(1998)DLT457
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) R.L. Malhotra, defendant No. 2 has filed this application under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code alleging that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 1.6.1991 and in the alternative for damages etc. against defendant No. 1 contending that the plaintiff was a tenant under defendant No. 1 in respect of front portion of the first floor of flat No. M- 84-A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi @ Rs. l,600.00 per month w.e.f. 1st May, 1983. On 1st June, 1991, defendant No. 1 entered into the aforesaid agreement to sell with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 5,10,000.00 . Plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000.00 in cash by way of earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid according to the schedule mentioned in the agreement. Defendant No. 2 is imp leaded as a party as aforementioned flat was sold to him by defendant No. 1 under a registered agreement to sell dated 19.11.1991.Plaintiff has further alleged that ...
Indian Bank Vs. Mahant Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT301
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Defendant No. 2 has filed this application under Rule 5(1)of Order Xxxiv read with Section 151, Cpc, inter alia, alleging that the plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1,91,595.51P. against the defendants under the provisions of Order Xxxiv, Civil Procedure Code and the suit was disposed of by the judgment dated 8/07/1993. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed appeal being Rfa (OS) No. 4/1994 before the Division Bench limited to the question of award of interest pendentelite and future 13.5% per annum. Defendants have paid the entire decretal amount along with interest and costs as per the said Judgment dated 8/07/1993 within the stipulated time. It was prayed that the plaintiffs be directed to deliver the documents of title referred to in the preliminary decree to defendant No. 2. (2) In the reply plaintiff has alleged that the defendants are not entitled to get back the titled deeds of the mortgaged property till the question of payment of pendent lite. and futur...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Inder Raj Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 71(1997)DLT92
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who while accepting appeal of the respondents has, inter alia, fixed the ratable value of the property bearing No. 10196/65 M.M. Road, Motia Khan, Delhi.(2) The respondents are joint owners of the property bearing No. 10196/65, M.M. Road, Motia Khan, Delhi and the same was assessed at a ratable value of Rs. 36,740 for the year 1978-79. It appears that the respondents let out the first and second floors of the property at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,712.10 with effect from 1-10-1978 and the basement at Rs. 6,000 per month with effect from 1-2-1979. Consequently, the Assessing Authority issued notice (Annexure A) to the respondents proposing a ratable value of Rs. 1,58,350 for the year 1978-79. Objections (Annexure B) were filed against the proposed enhancement of the ratable value. On 24-9-1982, the Assessing Authority passed the order (Annexure C) revising the ratable value t...
People Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 71(1997)DLT106
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the Award dated March 7, 1988 Along with proceedings and for making the same Rule of the Court. (2) The brief facts are that the petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent-Union of India through the Executive Engineer, Floor Control DrainageDivision-V, Delhi Administration, regarding the work 'Formation of designed section of Ghazipur-Drain and desalting of Cunnette from Rd 0 to Rd 6180 M'. The agreement bearing No. EEV/FCD/ACS/Agt. 8 was executed between the parties. Clause 25 of the agreement contained the procedure for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The mm may be reproduced as follows: 'CIAUSE- Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any ...
Etcho Process International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT376TriDel
1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 6,89,540/- and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs and stay of the recovery proceedings. When this case was called in the morning session, Shri Satnam Singh appearing for the Revenue expressed his inability to argue since he was not served with the supplementary cause list in which this matter was shown. Accordingly the matter was passed over. In the afternoon session again Shri Satnam Singh submits that he has not received the file from the relevant dealing clerk.Since this is a stay matter, we have no option but to proceed with the matter after hearing Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate for the applicants.2. It was submitted by Shri Anand that the item in question (Transfer Paper) Declacomania Paper Transfers is classifiable under Heading 4908.10 as claimed by the party or under 4809.90 as per the department is an issue to be considered in this case. He fairly conceded that this matter is arguable. He, ho...
Punjab Khand Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT171TriDel
1. The assessees manufactured sugar. They had a carpentry shop in their factory wherein they manufactured doors and window frames as well as articles of furniture. Duty was demanded and confirmed on these articles as falling under Tariff Item 68. The Assistant Collector while doing so rejected the claim of the assessees that benefit of Notification No. 118/75 was available to such products. He also rejected the plea that the goods were handicrafts and thus covered under Notification No. 234/82 or 281/86. In their appeal before the Collector, along with these points the assessees also claimed that since the goods were manufactured without the aid of power, the benefit of another Notification No. 179/77 was also available. The Collector rejected the last claim saying that since it was a question of fact, it could not be taken at the stage of appeal. The Collector upheld the lower order but reduced the penalty. This order dealt with two appeals filed by the assessees before him. Since th...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indira Rcc Spum Pipe Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT247TriDel
1. This is an appeal by Revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) holding that the demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector for the period beyond six months was time barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He had held that as a notice proceeded on the basis of the allegation that there was mis-declaration of assessable value which constituted wilful suppression of fact the Assistant Collector should not have decided the case and that the show cause notice also should not have been issued by the Superintendent under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for invoking the extended period beyond six months.2. Arguing the case of the appellant Commissioner, Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR stated that at the material time when the show cause notice was issued and adjudicated by the Assistant Collector, there was no statutory requirement that the notice should be issued by the Collector or that the adjudication...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »