Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Overruled

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT42TriDel

1. The appellants imported fly knife and Dead knife for use in duplex sheet cutter and claimed clearance thereof as 'spares' under a specific licence enabling them to import non-permissible spares. The Assistant Collector held that the imported goods were not spares but tools enumerated in Entry Serial No. 647 of Appendix 3 of ITC Policy AM 1980 and held that the goods were imported without a valid licence. He ordered confiscation but permitted redemption on a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld the order, the present appeal is before us.2. The case for the appellants was argued by Ms. Mukti Sinha, Advocate.Revenue was represented by Shri K. Srivastava, Senior Departmental Representative.3. Ms. Sinha referred to the definition of 'parts' and 'spares' and argued that the knives were essential parts of the cutting machines and that the impugned goods had been imported to replaced the worn out knives. She claimed that earlier also they had imported the same goods ...

Ultra Automan Rubbers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT561TriDel

1. Arguing for the appellants Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate submitted that the dispute is in respect of classification of the products namely rubber flaps used for animal drawn vehicles. He submitted that by mistake appellants have claimed classification under 4011.10 with reference to Notification No. 188/86-CE., dated 3-3-1986 as amended. The classification list filed by the appellants was approved by the department upto 31-3-1987. He fairly concede that the items are correctly classifiable under Heading 40.12. Since there was a specific heading which was introduced from 1-3-1986. He contended that since the classification list filed by the assessee was duly approved by the department, though it was not correct it was not open to the department to raise the demand retrospectively, since revision or modification of the classification list will come into effect prospectively that is from the date of issue of show cause notice. He said that in the instant case, show cause notice ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT425TriDel

1. This revenue appeal is directed against order dated 7-3-1989 of Collector of Customs(Appeals). The issue pertains to classification of PVC Log Rolls for electrical insulation. The goods were assessed under heading 3919.90 CTA. The respondent requested for reassessment of goods under heading 8546.90 CTA read with Notification 134/86.Collector(Appeals) allowed the appeal.2. Ld. DR arguing for the revenue, while reiterating the departmental arguments, fairly concedes that the matter is covered against them.3. Ld. Consultant for the respondent submits a copy of the Tribunal's order in the case of Intek Tapes Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 97. The Tribunal held that insulation tapes manufactured from polyester film and PVC are classifiable under sub-heading 8546.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as 'electricals insulators'. The Tribunal relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Chetna Polycoats (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1988 (37...

Narayan Glass Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in cross-appeal against order, dt. 31st July, 1992, of the learned CIT(A). The appeals having been heard together are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, as also some of the grounds being common.2. The assessee-firm is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of glassware, chimneys, lampware, glass bangles, etc. The account period for the relevant assessment year consists of 17 months, the books having been closed on 31st March, 1989. The assessee declared its income at Rs. 2,32,910 and the return of its income was accompanied by audit report under s. 44AB. The assessment was completed by the AO on 26th March, 1992, under s. 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 51,21,690 by making various additions/disallowances. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) gave relief of Rs. 18,30,966 and restored back addition of Rs. 22,734 on account of ESI disallowed under s. 43B and the issue relating to inflation in stocks restored to t...

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT (A)-VIII, New Delhi, dt. 25th March, 1988, on various grounds.2. Ground No. 1 urged by the assessee relates to disallowance of investment allowance to the extent of Rs. 2,99,040 in relation to plant and machinery added during the year in the administrative division.2.1 The assessee claimed investment allowance at Rs. 4,55,884 on the new machinery installed during the previous year on total cost of Rs. 18,23,537. The AO disallowed the claim of investment allowance on the following items : The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that the aforesaid machinery was used primarily for the liquor division and item No. 1 of the 11th Schedule to the IT Act specifically excluded investment allowance on such machinery.2.2 On first appeal, the learned counsel for the (sic) contended that the boiler as well as tube-wells were used for the generation of the steam which had been used in the distillery division as well as malted milkfood division...

Sthapati Engineers and Builders Vs. Central Building Research Institut ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR533(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT232

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) Disputes having arisen between the parties to the Contract entitling 'Fabrication of R.C.C. Channel Units for School Building Project, C.B.R.I., Aligarh', the same were referred to the sole arbitration of the respondent No. 2. (2) The respondent No. 2 entered into the reference and on receiving evidence on record and on hearing the parties made and published his award on 30.6.1984 grantingasumofRs.28,930.00 to the petitioner sand Rs. 13,890.00 to the respondent No. I in terms of their counter-claim. The Arbitrator further passed an award awarding simple interest @ 9% per annum from 1.4.1977 to 30.6.1984 on the net amount of the award in favor of the petitioners with the stipulation that if the respondents did not make the payment as awarded to the petitioners within 45 days from the date of publishing the award, a simple interest @ 12% per annum would be payable to the petitioners from the date of expiry of 45 days. (3) The petitioners filed a petition in this Court ...

Har Govind Jaggi Vs. the Executive Engineer Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)742; 1997(1)ARBLR425(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT304; (1997)116PLR69

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act praying for a direction to the respondent No. 3, the Arbitrator, to file the original award dated 21.2.1990 in this Court along with the relevant records and proceedings and to make same a Rule of the Court. (2) 'THE respondent No. 1 awarded a contract of Acquisition of Stores relating to carriage of cement from Shakurbasti siding to Dda stores. During the year 1985- 86, in respect of the aforesaid contract, disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and the respondents No. 1 and 2. Accordingly, in terms of the Arbitration Agreement executed between the parties, the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of the respondent No. 3. After the Statement of Claims were filed before the Arbitrator and documents produced by the parties, the respondent No. 3 after hearing the parties made and published his award on 21.2.1990. (3) On the aforesaid petition, notice was issued to t...

Union of India Vs. Creative Software (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)865; 66(1997)DLT383; 1997(41)DRJ371; (1997)116PLR41

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) What happens when, within ten days of service of summons issued in a suit under Order 37 in Form Iv, Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant appears in court and files not only the Vakalatnama but an application for leave to appear and defend as well? Would that amount to putting the appearance? No! says the learned trial Judge. Is she right? This is the question posed in this revision petition. (2) Let us first have a look at the broad outline of the procedure to be followed in a suit instituted under order 37. It is: On institution of a suit under order 37 a summons is issued under Rule 2(2) to the defendant in Form 4 of Appendix B. Rule 2(3) provides that a defendant shall not defend the suit 'unless he enters appearance' either in person or by pleader and that too within ten days of his service. The sub-rule (3) provides that on the day of entering the appearance, 'notice of such appearance shall be given by the defendant to the plaintiffs plead...

Suraj Prakash JaIn Vs. Chander Prakash JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)941; 66(1997)DLT251; (1997)116PLR59

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This order shall dispose of the application filed by the defendants No. 1 and 6 under Order 9 Rule 7 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 9.7.1991. (2) The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants seeking for partition of properties and possession of separate share of the plaintiff and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 to 4 are brothers and are sons of late Dr. Nihal Chand Jain who died on 30.12.1970. The defendant No. 5 was a minor at the time of the institution of the suit and, thereforee, he was represented by his father, the natural guardian. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statements, contesting the statements made in the plaint. A joint written statement on behalf of defendants No. 5 and 6 was filed. Defendant No. 1 filed his own written statement. On the pleadings of the parties,issueswerealso framed. The dates of trial in the case were fixed from 1st May, 1991 to 3rd May, 1991 and 6th and 7th...

M.S. Daya Chand Uttam Chand Prakash JaIn and ors. Vs. Santosh Devi Sha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1997Delhi592

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) In this revision petition the primary question is whether a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code . could be filed on the basis of an 'acknowledgment'.(2) The plaintiff respondent filed of suit of recovery for a sum of Rs. 49,956 along with interest on account of loan advanced and written acknowledgment of liability by the defendant.(3) According to the case of the plaintiff the respondent gave a statement of account indicating balance amount of Rs. 59.859.50 lor the financial year 1986-87. the respondent acknowledged the same by signing it. Interest of Rs. 7,422.50 was paid in July 1987 and Rs. 8,081 in April 1989 by the petitioner. The defendant made another written acknowledgment of the amount payable by it to the plaintiff showing that Rs. 75,363 was due against the defendant on 31 March, 1989. On demand the defendant paid Rs. 20,500 on 29th July, 1989 leaving a balance of Rs. 42,927.50. The petitioner claimed this amount along with interest at the rate of 18...