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.
Brimco Plastic Machinery Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT309TriDel
1. Appellants are engaged in providing turn-key plants for manufacture of finished products from plastic material. For this purpose they manufacture some machines/component parts in their factory and clear them on payment of Central Excise duty as per approved classification lists and price lists. They procure from outside other machines/component parts and supply them along with their own manufactured items. These are assembled and installed in the premises of their customers. It was found by the Central Excise Officers that the price realised by the appellants from their customers was more than the price of goods cleared from their factory on which they had paid duty. Show cause notice dated 6-10-1986 was issued by the Superintendent covering the period March, 1986 to August, 1986 alleging that on the differential value involved amounting to Rs. 2,63,93,818.39, duty payable at 15% worked out to Rs. 39,59,072.70. In addition duty of Rs. 8,25,000/- was shown as short paid on account o...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bombay Shuttle Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
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...
Modern Industries Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT523TriDel
1. Shri M.L. Gupta, ld. Consultant, narrating the facts of the case submits that the appellants have two units one at Mayapuri and the other at Mangolpuri. That in the Mayapuri Unit they are manufacturing electric motors whereas at the Mangolpuri Unit they are manufacturing electric fans. That in respect of electric fans they were availing Modvat credit whereas in respect of electric motors they were availing exemption from duty as SSI unit under Notification No. 175/86. The Department alleged that since the appellant is a small scale unit and is entitled to the benefit of exemption, therefore, they cannot avail simultaneously the credit on inputs due under the Modvat scheme. The ld. Consultant submitted that identical issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759. The ld. Consultant submitted that the Tribunal in that case had held :Swaraj Paints Industries v. Collector reported in 19...
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. Hospital Employees Union, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ516Del
ORDER1. The main point to be considered in this case is whether Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act., 1947 would he applicable or not to the workmen who are not covered by Section 25-F of this Act. The point in issue is indicated in the order dated May 24,1994 wherein the contention noticed is that where the workman has not served for a year, he is not entitled to retrenchment notice and workmen/respondents not having served for one year, they were not entitled to notice of retrenchment on the true import of Section 25. There cannot be any doubt that when workman had not served for a year he would not be entitled to retrenchment notice under Section 25-F of the Act. The question here, however, is different. It is whether a workman not covered by Section 25-F is entitled to or not to the benefit of reemployment under Section 25-H of the Act. This point now stands concluded by a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Central of India v. S. Satyam and Others (1996-II-LLJ-820) ho...
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs. Balbir Singh and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT468
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The main point to be considered in this case is whether Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be applicable or not to the workmen who are not covered by Section 25-F of this Act. The point in issue is indicated in the order dated 24th May, 1994 wherein the contention noticed is that where the workman has not served for a year, he is not entitled to retrenchment notice and workman/respondents not having served for one year, they were not entitled to notice of retrenchment on the true import of Section 25. There cannot be any doubt that when workman had not served for a year, he would not be entitled to retrenchment notice under Section 25-F of the Act. The question here, however, is different. It is whether a workman not covered by Section 25-F, is entitled to or not to the benefit of re-employment under Section 25-H of the Act. This point now stands concluded by a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Oth...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Joginder Pal Minocha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)411; 67(1997)DLT851; 1997(42)DRJ439
J.B. Goel, J. (1) By this order I am disposing of the aforesaid three applications filed by the defendants No.1, 2 & 3 respectively seeking leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff.(2) Plaintiff who is a Banking Company has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,86,062.75p. comprising of the principal amount and interest.(3) Defendant No.1 is principal debtor whereas defendants No.2 to 4 are his guarantors. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff Bank in May, 1980 for loan of Rs. 3 lacs for the purchase of a truck for his business and had offered to hypothecate the truck and also to furnish the guarantees of defendants No.2 to 4 as sureties. This was accepted by the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs was disbursed towards the purchase of truck by defendant No.1 and his account was debited. In consideration the defendant No.1 on 7.5.1985 had executed various documents including a Demand Promissory Note agreeing to pay the amount of Rs. 3 lacs ...
Unique Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT437TriDel
1. Appellants had entered into a contract with M/s. Indian Oil Corporation for fabrication and supply of LPG tank wagon bullets which fell under erstwhile Tariff Item 68. Appellants had filed price list declaring Rs. 1,55,400/- as the assessable value for each bullet made up of Rs. 1,07,000/- as fabrication cost and Rs. 48,400/- as the material cost for BQ steel plates. The price list was approved and duty was paid on that basis by the appellants. Subsequently it was found that the appellants had also received certain parts required for the bullets required for being tested and fitted to the bullets, the cost whereof had not been included in the declared assessable value. Show cause notice dated 8-10-1985 was issued by the Superintendent proposing demand of duty after increasing the cost of steel plates including the cost of fittings and adding notional margin of profit of 10% at the hands of the customers, IOC. The notice was followed by a corrigendum dated 22-6-1987 issued by the Co...
Benara Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT104TriDel
1. Shri Rajesh Jain, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that benefit in terms of Notification No. 83/83 has been denied on the ground that the appellants had not filed declaration and obtained prior approval of the department. He contended that non-filing of the declaration could not result in denial of benefit of exemption in terms of notification which was otherwise permissible in the eye of law. He submitted that the value of clearances did not exceed Rs. 45,000 during the period in question. He submitted that the demand was raised for the period from March, 1983 to August, 1984. Since the value of the clearances fall within the exemption limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, he said that department was not justified in denying the benefit. He also contended that it was charged that the appellants have clandestinely manufactured metal containers with the aid of power. He said that it is not correct in view of the fact that the appellants have purchased the machinery only in the m...
M/S. Shoes East Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi325; [1998]94CompCas475(Delhi); (1997)117PLR57
ORDER1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24-5-1996 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal refusing to stay the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act).2. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an adequate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act. It is undisputed that the Appellate Tribunal has since been constituted. Inevitably, the issue here has to run around the language of the statute and, thereforee, the provisions of the Section 17 of the Act may be read at the very outset Section 17reads as under :--'Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authori...
Rajpal Gupta Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)157; 1997(2)ARBLR132(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT667; 1997(42)DRJ121
Mahinder Narain, A.C.J. (1) We are of the view that only a short point is involved in this case and that is to say whether the five questions which were required to be referred to the arbitrator, should be referred to arbitrator, or is it that only one of them can be said to be arising out of the contract between, the parties.(2) The contract between the parties was for manufacture and supply of nuts and bolts of specific dimensions. It is the case of the appellant before us that the raw materials for manufacturing nuts and bolts in the form of mild steel was to be supplied by the respondent Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Upon their failure to supply the raw materials same had to be procured from the market, as a result of which costs was incurred and losses suffered, as the contract had been performed by the appellant/petitioner.(3) It appears to us that all the claims which are mentioned judgment relate to, and arise out of the contract of manufacture and supply ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »