Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Elcomen

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT707TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is the eligibility of the components of the video cassette to the Modvat credit when used in the manufacture of blank video cassette. In Para 4 of his order, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta had held as under :- 4. I have considered the matter and I am convinced that the appellants have a case on merits. I find Rule 57 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, provides for Modvat credit in respect of the specified in the used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, the only restriction being that such final product is not exempted or chargeable to nil rate of duty. In terms of the said Notification No. 177/86 (supra), so long as the inputs and final product are covered by the specific chapter specified therein, duty paid on, the inputs would be available as Modvat credit. In the instant case, "inputs - Components of video cassette" -and final pr...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT739TriDel

1. These three appeals (one by the assessees and two by the Revenue) involve the same points and, therefore, are taken up for disposal together in this single order.2. The assessees manufactured "Salbutamol Inhaler". In the Inhaler, the drug is packed in a metal container which is fitted in the outer plastic housing.The Inhaler contains a spray device using metered valves which ensures a single dose to be delivered on pressure being applied irrespective of the duration of the application of pressure. The assessees imported such valves. The assessees claimed classification under Heading 8481.80 of the CTA, 1975 with benefit of Notification No. 153/86. The Customs, however, classified the product under Heading 9619.10. The refund claim of the assessees on the ground that classification under Heading 8481.80 was more appropriate, was rejected by the Assistant Collector.In appeal proceedings, the classification was held to be under 8481.80 but the benefit of notification was denied. The a...

Ceat Tyres of India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT528TriDel

1. All these appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. Before proceeding with the matter, applications for change in the cause title by substituting M/s. F.G.P. Ltd. for M/s. CEAT Tyres of India Limited were considered and allowed.3. The appellants imported 'Blades for Chopped Strand Cutter'. These blades are used for cutting glass fibre into chopped strands. These were assessed to duty under CTH 8208.90 read with 8479.89. They claimed refund on the ground that goods were assessable under 8441.10 CTA and under 8479.89. They also subsequently requested for assessment under Notification No. 153/86 and Notification No. 313/86 and alternative claim was made for classification under 8464.90 in regard to the main machine of which the impugned goods constitutes a part.4. The learned Advocate submits that they accepted the claim for the impugned goods under 8208.90. However, the main machine would be classifiable under 84...

Babu Ram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross-appeals by the assessees and the Revenue are directed against different orders of CIT(A). The major common controversy involved in most of appeals relates to assessment of moneylending business for which documents were seized in search carried by the Revenue on 8th August, 1995, in the premises of three brothers namely, Shri Babu Ram, Shri Gian Chand and Shri Prabhu Dayal, all sons of late Shri Shiv Charan Das. These brothers were admittedly carrying on kirana business (separately) at village Dhaunj, Distt. Faridabad, and were assessed in individual capacity relating to that business. No income from moneylending business was shown in the returns submitted by the brothers till the date of search. At the time of search, Shri Babu Ram and his brothers as also their sons admitted that they were carrying on moneylending business but did not remember whether income from above source was shown. However, during the course of assessment proceedings taken subsequent to the raid, ...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. People Co-operative Labour and Constru ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)127; 1997(2)ARBLR196(Delhi); 70(1997)DLT322; 1997(42)DRJ290

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The parties entered into an agreement for construction of Rest House, Information Centre T.K. Booths, Advance Booking Section, Bus-queue shelters, Nodal Point at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and earth filling boundary wall. Disputes arose between the parties which were referred for adjudication of Shri Swami Dayal, Chief Engineer (Retd.) CPWD. The Arbitrator made and published his Award on 18th March, 1987. This Award has been challenged by the respondent in respect of Claims No. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 by means of the application being I.A. No. 564/89. Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that- 1.The Award is a nullity having been made by the arbitrator after the expiry of four months from the date of entering upon reference. --- *** --- 2.The arbitrator failed to give any reason for the Award rendered by him. 3.The Award was based on no evidence. 4.The Arbitrator proceeded ex parte without issuing a notice to the respondent of his inten...

R.K. Varshney Vs. Financial Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)150; 68(1997)DLT200; 1997(42)DRJ128

ORDER(1) In this writ petition challenge is to the order (annexure-L) dated October 17, 1994 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the revision petition of respondent No. 5 filed under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 against the order (annexure-I) dated December 21, 1993 of respondent No. 2.(2) In short the petition has been filed alleging that R.C.Sharma-respondent No. 5 was one of the founder member of Pragatisheel Nagrik Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. respondent No. 3 and he held the office of President or Secretary of the Society for many years. Respondent No. 5 clandestinely got enrolled his wife Smt. Santosh Sharma as a member of the Society vide membership No. 184 on August 25, 1988. He further enrolled his minor dependent daughter Ms.Radhika Sharma as member of the Society vide membership No. 190 on October 20, 1990. On the petitioner and few other members of the Society having come to know about the enrolling of his wife and the daughter as member...

Avtar Singh Sehmi Vs. Rattna Dave

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 68(1997)DLT300; 1997(42)DRJ41

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Respondents herein i.e. Smt.Ratna Dave and her two daughters sought eviction of this petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). Eviction was sought on the ground that they need the tenanted premises for her Driver and servants. Petitioner was inducted as tenant in respect of two rooms, store, kitchen, varandah and toilet accessible through open stair case (being servant quarter on the first floor above the garrage) of premises bearing No.67, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000.00 including electricity and water charges.(2) The basic need of the landlady for which eviction was sought had been on the first floor of the main house under her occupation there are three bed rooms, drawing-dinnig, kitchen, bath, lounge etc. This residential accommodation and a car garrage on the ground floor is not sufficient for her needs nor for the needs of her daughters. Their dependent domestic servants and driver...

Sanjay Tandon Vs. Sarabjit Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi380; 67(1997)DLT686; 1997(42)DRJ426

K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by Sanjay Tandon, plaintiff-appellant, is directed against the order dated November 21, 1996 of learned Single Judge whereby No. 879/96 filed by him under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was dismissed.(2) Suit has been filed by the appellant, inter alia, alleging that Sarabjit Singh, defendant respondent No. 1, is the owner of the property bearing No. A-196, defense Colony, New Delhi and he was interested to dispose of the property. As respondent No. 1 is residing in Usa, by executing a Special Power of Attorney dated September 30, 1995, he appointed Bhupinder Singh defendant-respondent No. 2, as his attorney. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement to sell dated October 25, 1995, with the appellant. Under this agreement to sell the aforesaid property A-196 was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 45 lacs, out of which a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid by the appellant as earnest money through Pa...

Babu Ram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. (Also Prabhu Dayal ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)105

ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J.M. :These cross-appeals by the assessees and the Revenue are directed against different orders of CIT(A). The major common controversy involved in most of appeals relates to assessment of moneylending business for which documents were seized in search carried by the Revenue on 8th August, 1995, in the premises of three brothers namely, Shri Babu Ram, Shri Gian Chand and Shri Prabhu Dayal, all sons of late Shri Shiv Charan Das. These brothers were admittedly carrying on kirana business (separately) at village Dhaunj, Distt. Faridabad, and were assessed in individual capacity relating to that business. No income from moneylending business was shown in the returns submitted by the brothers till the date of search. At the time of search, Shri Babu Ram and his brothers as also their sons admitted that they were carrying on moneylending business but did not remember whether income from above source was shown. However, during the course of assessment proceedings taken sub...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bombay Shuttle Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT295TriDel

1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against order dated 24-10-1989 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The Respondents imported "Eyes" and sought clearance under Notification No. 181 /87-Customs as component parts of "Auto Shuttles." This claim was rejected on the ground that Eyes are component parts of shuttles which in turn are parts of looms and therefore shuttles are classifiable under CTH 98.06. Even though shuttles figure specifically under C.T.H. 84.48, by virtue of Chapter Note (1) of Chapter 98 these would fell under 98.06. Notification No. 181/87 does not cover the parts of goods falling under C.T.H. 98.06 and since C.T.H. 98.06 is not mentioned in the Table annexed in the Notification 181/87 the benefit of Notification was denied. In Appeal, however, Collector (Appeals) gave relief on the ground that shuttles are accessories and not parts of looms and therefore are not classifiable under Heading 98.06. Since shuttles fall under 84.48 which figures in Table an...