Delhi Court April 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.
Southern Bottlers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT596TriDel
1. The appellant, receiving the notice of hearing had sent a request praying for adjournment or a decision on merits. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing Shri Mohammed Ali, JDR and perusing the papers.2. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters, had included in the declared price Rs. 2.85 per crate of 24 bottles to be collected from the buyers. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period 16-8-1974 to 16-8-1975. The duty, having been paid at the time of clearances on the approved value, the appellant filed a claim seeking refund of Rs. 5,27,881.70 being the duty on that part of the assessable value arrived at on computation @ 2.85 per crate, alleging that the amount was collected as freight charges and cannot be included in the assessable value. The Assistant Collector originally rejected the refund claim on merits as also on the ground that it was partly barred by time. This order was ultimately set aside by the Tribunal directing the A.C. t...
C.C.E. Vs. Shree Arun Packaging Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT195TriDel
1. These are two appeals against the same order-in-appeal dated 12-1-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay; Appeal No. E/4126/90-C filed by the Revenue and Appeal No. E/3997/90-C filed by M/s. Shree Arun Packaging Corpn. As both the appeals arise out of the same order-in-appeal. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, advocate for M/s. Shree Arun Packaging Corpn. and Shri J.M. Sharma, JDR for the Revenue.3. The goods involved are the printed wrapper for safety razor blades.The assessee had sought to classify these printed wrappers under sub-heading 4819.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which covered the cartons, boxes, cases, bags and other packing containers of paper etc. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) agreed with the adjudicating authority that the goods in question were classifiable under sub-heading No. 4823.90 of the Tariff.4. In the appeal filed by t...
Shri Lal Chand Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ304Del
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition in which it has been prayed that the order dated July 16, 1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Engg.), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Engineering Department be quashed. 2. The petitioner by the order dated February 20, 1995 was regularised in Div. -IV w.e.f. April 1, 1982 against the post of Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 220-270 with usual allowances as admissible to the employees of MCD and terms and rules indicated in that letter. On July 16, 1986 the Assistant Commissioner (Engg.) passed the order by which the order regularising the petitioner was kept in abeyance till further orders. 3. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed this writ petition. This Court issued show cause notice on December 16, 1987. Mrs. Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the MCD submitted that the counter affidavit could not be filed in this case because the original records pertaining to the petitioner are not traceable in the MCD and despi...
Sab Industries Ltd. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Central Government Em ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)294; AIR1997Delhi326; 1997(2)ARBLR280(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT908; 1997(41)DRJ704
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against the decision of respondents 1, 2 and 3 in not opening the price bid of the petitioner and to declare respondents 4 and 5 as lowest bidders for construction of 1088 residential flats in three packages at Gurgaon, Haryana.(2) The facts as stated in the writ petition are that Sa Builders Ltd. was a private limited company incorporated in 1978 under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has now been re-named as Sab Industries Ltd. The turnover in the last five years has been more than Rs. 15 crores per annum. The petitioner has successfully executed a number of projects all over India including the Housing Scheme for Gas Authority of India at Guna, 874 Bed Hospital for the Indian Army at a cost of Rs. 30 crores, B.R.Ambedkar University at Hyderabad, Housing Project for Ministry of defense at Port Blair at a cost of Rs. 700 lakhs, Research Centre for Drdo under Ministry of defense at a cost of Rs. 12.5 crores. Main Plant Building along...
Foremost Industries India Vs. Credit Capital Finance Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)62; [1997]89CompCas670(Delhi); 70(1997)DLT299; 1997(42)DRJ122
Mahinder Narain, A.C.J.(1) The way we perceive this case it is apparent that the appointment of Provisional Liquidator made by the Bombay High Court in company proceedings, was a conditional appointment. Before the time fixed for performance arrived, the parties had entered into a settlement, the effect of which settlement was that the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator was deferred.(2) Apart from this, what is significant is the provisions of Section 456 of the Companies Act, which reads as follows:- '456 (1) Where a winding up order has been made or where a provisional liquidator has been appointed, the liquidator or the provisional liquidator, as the case may be, shall take into his custody or under his control, all the property, effects and actionable claims to which the company is or appears to be entitled. (IA)for the purpose of enabling the liquidator or the provisional liquidator, as the case may be, to take into his custody or under his control, any property, effects or...
Raj Kishan Dass Vs. Kusum Sanghi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)574; 68(1997)DLT717; 1997(43)DRJ181
K.Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants. The dispute relates to the ground floor and the basement of premises bearing No. 9. Western Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff is that with reference to the land, a perpetual lease deed was executed in favor of the plaintiff by the Society in which the plaintiff was a member on 11.01.1982. The plaintiff is residing at No. 3, Pusa Road, New Delhi. The defendant No. 1 is the elder sister of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was residing in No. 4, Ring Road, Kilokri, New Delhi, which is very near to the suit land. Husband of the first defendant died in 1982. After the death of her husband the first defendant started living with her daughter Mrs. Priya Gupta who was married in 1994 at E-279, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The plaintiff applied for sanctioning of the plan and the plan was sanctioned on 28.10.1994. The plaintiff started construction as p...
Textool Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT189TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Textool Co. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the gearwheels, shafts and pulleys. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of textile machinery and parts of such machinery. They had sought classification of these parts under Heading No. 84.48 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered ancillary machinery for use with machines of among others Heading No.84.45 of the Tariff. The Department had sough to classify these parts under Heading No. 84.43 on the ground that these parts were specifically included in that Tariff Entry. Relying upon the Chapter Notes and the Section Notes, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that as these parts were specifically mentioned under Heading No. 84.43, they had to be classified therein irrespective of the fact that, whether they were solely or principally usable for textile machinery.2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 1-4-1997. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.3. On...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT161TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.' 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9-6-1994, Anti-Evasion officer's of Central Excise Collectorate visited the factory premises of the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of cement clinkers falling under Chapter 25 of the CETA, 1985. They noticed that the appellants had installed another unit Gagal Unit II adjacent to the existing Unit I for which they had already obtained Central Excise Registration in February, 1994. The officers noticed that certain quantity of clinkers had been produced but not entered in the statutory records like RG-I register by Unit 2 and a statement of Shri V.K.Trivedi, Dy. General Manager of the appellant was recorded on the date of visit. In his statement he admitted that the appellants had not maintained any statutory records and also not filed RT-12 returns or classification list. He further stated that 4790 Mts. of clinkers had been produ...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Mahalaxmi Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT376TriDel
1. By the captioned reference application, the ld. Commr., Central Excise, Chandigarh has stated that the following point of law arises out of the Tribunal's order No. 1527/96-NB, dated 7-6-1996: "Whether an application under Rule 57H(1)(A) is a sine qua non for the Asstt. Collector to verify the stocks before a licensee seeks credit of duty paid inputs purportedly lying in stock immediately before the dated acknowledgement of declaration of Rule 57G and whether in the absence of any application for speeking credit under the then Rule 57H(1)(A) how the Asstt. Collector will reach such satisfaction envisaged under Rule 57H(1)(A)." 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturer of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee filed a declaration under Rule 57G and obtained acknowledgement on 13-8-1993. It was observed by the deptt. that the assessee took Modvat credit of ...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT447TriDel
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of LDPE Films [erstwhile T.I.15A(2)], had not filed classification list and had not obtained excise licence and was clearing the goods without payment of Central Excise duty. Samples were taken on two occasions by the Preventive Staff of the Department and the report of the National Test House, Calcutta showed samples to be of flexible quality. Respondent had not paid duty apparently under the belief that there was full exemption under Notification No. 68/71. It was found that the notification covered only Film of rigid variety and since the Film produced by the respondent was of flexible variety, it was not covered by the notification.Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent proposing demand of duty in respect of clearances during the period from 1-1-1981 to 3-11-1981....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »