Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Liberty Sales Services Vs. Jakki Mull and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)917; 66(1997)DLT506; 1997(41)DRJ26

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) The plaintiff is the appellant and has Filed this Fao against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.10.1996. This order was passed in a group of I.As. and in Suit No. 264/94 which was initially Filed by the appellant in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction and was later transferred to the High Court and registered as Suit No. 997 of 1996. It was so transferred with a view to be tried along with Suit No. 885 of 1994 Filed by the same appellant in the High Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.(2) Before the transfer the plaintiff-appellant obtained an ex parte injunction order on 2.4.94 from the Sub-Judge which was vacated on 15.4.94 by the Sub-Judge. Then plaintiff Filed Suit No. 885/94 under Section 20 of the. Arbitration Act in High Court and again got an interim order 23.5.94 which was made absolute on 1.3.95. Under the impugned-order dated 1.10.96, the learned Single Judge held that the relationship between the appell...

Palm Grove Hotel Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT530TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order of the adjudicating authority, who rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants for refund of duty paid on dish washing machine imported by them and cleared on payment of duty, on the ground that in terms of Notification No. 6/86, the certificate from the Joint Secretary, Department of Tourism had to be produced at the time of clearance of the goods and production of certificate at the subsequent stage is not permissible.2. We have heard Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned counsel and Shri K.K.Jha, learned SDR and considered the rival submissions.3. The claim for refund of duty is on the ground that the goods are covered by Notification No. 6/86, dated 2-1-1986 which extends the concessional rate of duty to certain specific goods when imported into India, subject to the following conditions : (i) the importer, at the time of clearance produces a certificate from an offic...

Bimetal Bearings Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT564TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the imported product is classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 9027.90 read with Heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as claimed by the appellants or was classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 8473.30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and for Central Excise purposes, it should be assessed to Countervailing duty under Chapter Sub-heading 8473.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported the goods in dispute and declared them as spare parts for Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer. The appellants had imported earlier spectrophotometer. The original CPU units supplied along with the complete spectrophotometer had got damaged and therefore, the appellants imported the present goods. The Assessing Officer classified the goods under sub-heading 8473.30 of the CTA, 1975 at a rate of duty of 200% + Countervailing duty 20% under 8473 of the CETA, 1985. The Appellants agitated...

Bhagsons Paints Ind. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT136TriDel

1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants has assailed the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) had held that Trimethylbenzene can neither be considered as a chemical nor a chemical formulation and, therefore, he upheld the order of the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal of the appellants herein.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants received C-IX solvent under Chapter X procedure and converted it into a product which they called trimethylbenzene and claimed that the new product was a chemical formulation and, therefore, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 276/67 dated 21-12-1967. The Department took a sample of the product and sent it to its Laboratory for chemical examination; that the laboratory of the Revenue Department reported after conducting tests on trimethylbenzene and solvent C-IX; that the material trimethylbenzene obtained by fractional distillation of solvent C-IX can neither be considered as a chemical nor a chemical ...

Asiantic Ultramarine and Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT140TriDel

1. In the present appeals, two issues arise for determination. The first issue is whether ultramarine blue purchased by the appellants in bulk and then repacked in small consumer packets was classifiable under Tariff Heading 32.06 as claimed by the assessees or under Chapter Heading 32.12 as held by the authorities. The second issue is whether the demand is time barred.2. Shri C.S. Lodha, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants narrated the facts and submitted that the appellants purchased ultramarine blue in bulk packing and repacked them in smaller packings. He submits that the manufacturers of ultramarine blue were paying duty under Chapter Heading 32.06 and the appellants were not paying duty on the product; that CBEC issued a clarification on 7th December, 1990 stating that ultramarine blue in bulk form is appropriately classifiable under Chapter 32.06 and the same when put up in a small packing would be classified under Heading 32.12 of the CETA, 1985. He submits that conseque...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anil Kumar. (Anil Kumar V. Dy. C ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. There is an appeal by Revenue and cross-appeal and cross-objection by assessee against single order of the CIT(A) pertaining to asst. yr.1987-88. Since all these matters arise out of a single order, for the sake of convenience these matters are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The appeal of the Department is barred by limitation for 18 days.However, an application has been given by Department for condonation of delay stating that formerly assessee was being assessed by Dy. CIT, Spl Range, Agra and the same was completed by Dy. CIT(A), Spl. Range, subsequently. The jurisdiction over these cases were transferred to the Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle, Agra by CIT, Agra. As the assessment in these cases were completed by the Dy. CIT, Spl. Range, Agra, the CIT(A) sent the batch of appellate orders to Dy. CIT, Spl. Range, Agra instead of sending the batch to Dy. CIT, Spl. Range, Agra who is holding the jurisdiction over the Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle I. There was sufficient change with...

Jugdish Chander Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998RLR254

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The plaintiff moved this court in December, 1997 for permission to file the suit as an indigent person under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Court granted permission by order dated 22.3.82. The plaintiff, as a consequence, tiled a suit for recovery of Gold ornaments weighing 480 Tolas i.e. 5596.80 grams deposited in safe deposit box under receipt No. 17/47 of 3.6.47 with the defendant Bank 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 thereof 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 pff. and deft. 3 to 5 and husband, of Smt. Washeshran Devi, who was arrayed as delt. No. 2 but was deleted by the Court's order as she had expired during the pendency of the suit, was an eminent civil lawyer of Peshawar (now forming part of Pakistan) in 1947. He h...

Haryana Wax Manufacturers Association and anr. Vs. Union of India and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)944; 66(1997)DLT332

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against the respondents to allocate and supply Paraffin Wax Type-111 to the State of Haryana equitably on the basis of the demand of the State on regular basis for onward distribution to the manufacturers who reside and work for gain in the State of Haryana. Petitioner No. I, it is contended, is an Association of Wax ., respondent No. 2 under the directions of the Central Government. (2) The petitioners have further contended that respondent No. 1 is not following the transparent regular allocation of this raw material to all the States where it is so required and allocates this raw material on inequitable basis. (3) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The matter can be disposed of finally at this stage. The Union of India, respondent No. 1 has filed additional affidavit wherein the following pleas are taken : (A)The distribution of Paraffin Wax has been made on the directions dated 24th January, 1985 issued under Para 11 of...

V.P. Singhal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 66(1997)DLT143

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) PETITIONER'S case in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the Delhi Development Authority, respondent launched 'Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979' (for short 'the Scheme') which was opened on September 1,1979 and closed on September 30,1979. The petitioner being eligible under the Scheme applied for registration by making a deposit of Rs. 4,500.00 and he was registered under the Scheme in Mig category. It is alleged that after 14 years of wait the petitioner vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated August 27,1993 was allotted flat No. 307, Pul Pehladpur, Delhi, on cash down basis at the cost of Rs. 6,01,500.00 by the respondent. However, as a result of decision, in Retired/Retiring Public Servants Forum v. Dda, dated February 3, 1995, the respondent held a fresh draw in which the name of the petitioner was also included and he was allotted the same flat No. 307, Pul Pehiadpur, at the same cost of Rs. 6,01,500.00 on hire-purchase bas...

Gopichand and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)413; 66(1997)DLT579

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have alleged that in the auction held by the respondent on July 13, 1993, for shop No. 23 (area 11.31 sq. metres) in C.S.G. No. 2, Sector Ix, Rohini, Delhi, they gave a bid of Rs. 2,71,000.00 . Since the bid of the petitioners was the highest, as per the terms and conditions (Annexure A) they deposited a sum of Rs. 67,750.00 as the earnest money i.e. 25% of the bid amount. After the bid of the petitioners was confirmed by the Vice Chairman, respondent issued a demand notice No. 93(62) 93 Ce dated July 29, 1993 (Annexure B). In terms of this demand notice petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,11,425.00 within 30 days from the date of issue thereof. Amount demanded under the Head (h)(iii) in the said demand notice is as under : Ground Rent per annum ... Rs. 4,065 .00 Maintenance Charges ... Rs. 4,065.00 (2) It is alleged that at the time of auction the petitioners were n...