Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Goel S. Pal and Another Vs. Incharge Copying Agency

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who was complainant before the District Forum, applied to the Copying Agency for a certified copy of certain documents in the prescribed proforma after affixing 50p. Court fee stamp. The application was registered against serial number 2414 dated 4.2.91. The complainant agreed to pay the balance charges at the time of the delivery of the certified copies in accordance with the rules, instructions and the practice being followed. The complainant was given date after date to collect the certified copies. A Photostat copy of the sheet on which dates starting from 12.2.91 upto 21.7.93 were given has been filed but the copies were not supplied. It was during the pendency of the complainant's application that on 25.2.93 the present complaint was filed before the District Forum-I. 2. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The complainant filed his affidavit. District Forum-I, however, dismissed the complaint ...

Kamarajar Electricity System Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT100TriDel

1. The common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 127 to 129/87 (Md), dated 30-9-1987 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Madras, is being challenged in these three appeals. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) refers to three appeals against orders dated 22-1-1987, 3-2-1987 and 18-3-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Virudhunagar. However, it is seen that copies of only two of the orders have been produced by the appellant. We are satisfied that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the three orders-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector are being challenged before us.2. The common appellant is Superintending Engineer, Kamarajar Electricity Distn. Circle, Virudhunagar. The Electricity Board manufactures R.C.C. Poles (Heading 68.07) and captively consumes the R.C.C. Poles in the setting up of electricity distribution system and the like. The Board was filing Price Lists under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975...

Wiltech India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT101TriDel

1. Shri Prashant Bhatnagar, Regional Sales Executive in the Delhi office of the appellant is present before us. He prays for an adjournment on the ground that the appellants Consultant is pre-occupied. It appears that he has received a fax message to that effect from appellants factory at Mysore. He is unable to indicate who the Consultant is and in what manner the Consultant is pre-occupied. We are not satisfied that this is a sufficient ground for adjournment.Hence the request for adjournment is rejected. Shri Prashant Bhatnagar states that he does not want to address arguments. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of razors and razor blades was, from time to time, filing price lists claiming appropriate deductions and the price lists were being approved subject to verification of actuals. Goods were being taken to Depots and sales were being effected from Depots. Duty was being paid on the clearances at the factory gate ...

S.R.i. Footwear Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT107TriDel

1. These are appeals against the order of Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 24-6-1991.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are SSI Units and are manufacturing footwear with rubber soles. They prepare compounded rubber in their own factory. This compounded rubber is immediately converted into rubber sheets and strips. Both compounded rubber and rubber sheets and strips fall under Heading No. 40.05. The rubber sheets and strips are cut to the desired shape for making rubber soles which in turn are used for manufacture of rubber footwear inside the appellants' own factory. Rubber footwear fall under Chapter 64.3. The appellants submit that heading 40.05 covers "compounded rubber, unvulcanised in primary form or in plates, sheets or strip". By Notification No. 71/68-C.E. dated 1-4-1968 (as amended) the Government have exempted all rubber products in the form of plates, sheets and strips unhardened whether vulcanised or not and whether combined with any textile mate...

Shree Vrajesh Textile Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT80TriDel

1. Whether yarn manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under 18-III(i) as claimed by the assessees under 18-III(ii) as per Department is an issue to be considered in this appeal.2. Shri P.M. Dave, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants submitted that result of sample drawn on 17-5-1983 as well as on 29-8-1983 cannot be extended to allots during the period from May, 1983 to September, 1983. He said that results of sample are applicable to the sample which was drawn on a particular day or to a respective lot and not to the entire quantity during the period in question. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kiran Spinning Mills, Bombay v. C.C.E., Bombay, reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 137 wherein it was held that test result of sample drawn is applicable only to quantity of yarn spun out of blend from which sample was drawn. He submitted that this is the view of the Tribunal even in other two cases namely S.D. Kemexc Industri...

Collector of Customs Vs. Devi Corporation of Konkan

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT282TriDel

1. This Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-2-1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The respondents imported a consignment described as "Cattle Embryos Frozen in Liquid Nitrogen". They claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 215 dated 2-3-1976 (as amended) which exempts frozen semen equipment and frozen semen from the whole of customs duty leviable thereon. The Collector (Appeals) held that the goods were imported for the purpose of training and "EMP" is almost akin to frozen sperm and the difference is only of one week in age after fertilisation, he allowed the benefit. The Revenue have come in appeal against this order.3. No one appeared for the respondents when the matter was called in spite of the notice having been served on them.4. Arguing for the Revenue, the Learned DR submits that there is vast difference between semen and embryo and therefore the benefit of Notification which exempts only semen could not be extended to the ...

Simmonds Marshall Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT693TriDel

1. The short point to be considered in these appeals is whether Nyloc Nut was classifiable under entry 52 or 68 of the erstwhile Tariff.2. The party claimed that nut manufactured by the assessee known as Nyloc nut was classifiable under 68 of the Central Excise Tariff but the department has taken the view that nuts manufactured by the appellants were basically nuts used for fastening and therefore, falls under entry 52. The matter went up to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the party holding that the item in question was correctly classifiable under entry 52 as per Order dated 28-11-1996 in Civil Appeal No. 3125/84 in the very party's case (Simmonds Marshall Ltd.). Since the Supreme Court has decided the issue against the assessees holding that item in question is classifiable under entry 52, following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the assessees.Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed....

Subhash Chand Goyal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee is in appeal against consolidated order of CIT (A)-I, Agra, dt. 7th April, 1995, mainly on the ground that the assessment order dt. 30th October, 1992, was beyond the period of limitation as specified in s. 153 of the IT Act and that the benefit of s. 153, Expln. 1(v) cannot be availed of by the AO without giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard.1.1. These eight appeals involve common grounds relating to limitation and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. It may be mentioned at the outset that these eight appeals were listed for hearing along with other appeals relating to quantum and that after some discussion, the learned counsel for the assessee chose to argue first those eight appeals on the ground of limitation.3. The brief facts of these cases are that the assessment orders in relation to the years under consideration were made on 30th October, 1992. The assessments for the asst. yrs. 1980-...

Bari Doab Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi95; [1997]89CompCas438(Delhi)

C.M. Nayar J. 1. This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, C.W.P. No. 3885 of 1996 (Bari Doab Bank, Ltd. v. Union of India) and C.W.P. No. 4046 of 1996 (Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India) as they raise common questions of law. 2. The facts of each case may be reproduced as follows : Bari Doab Bank Ltd. v. Union of India. The petitioner-bank was started in the year 1915 and initially had two branches till 1947. One branch was in Lahore and the other one was situated in Hoshiarpur (Punjab). It is further alleged that the bank has always been a profit-making company and even at the time of partition in the year 1947, the bank while closing down its business at Lahore repaid all its depositors whatsoever without any deductions. The bank is situated in a backward underdeveloped area and is a small-scale bank having only one branch. The provisions of section 11(3) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are cited in the petition to re...

Durga Luxmi Builders Vs. Vice-chancellor, University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT577

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioner entered into a contract with the University of Delhi through its Executive Engineer, South Campus, for work of 'Construction of Boys Hostel at South Campus, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi'. The contract also related to development of land including sewerage, drainage and water supply etc. The work order was issued to the petitioner on 5.4.1988 and the work was executed and completed in all respect by the petitioner. (2) However, and differences arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid construction work. The petitioner invoked arbitration clause on 1.11.1993 by writing letters and calling upon the respondent No. 1 to appoint the Arbitrator to refer the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents. However, since the respondents did not take any step for appointment of the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement the petitioner approached this Court with a petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act with the prayer for dir...