Delhi Court May 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.
Devidayal Rolling Mills Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT350TriDel
1. M/s. Devi Dayal Rolling Mills have filed this appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 18-8-1987.2. The issue relates to rate of excise duty on copper waste and scrap and copper wire rods.3. By classification list No. 8/84-85 filed by the appellants with effect from 1-8-1984 they had classified their products as 'copper wire rods rolled out of casted copper wire bars' under erstwhile Tariff Item 26A(3)(i) and claimed exemption from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 174/84 contending that casted copper wire bars which were manufactured by them from waste and scrap of copper and copper wire rods come under ISI classification sub-heading No. 3.2 as wrought form of copper. Since both the inputs and output fell under the same tariff heading they claimed that no duty was leviable on such copper-rods. By an other C.L. (No. 9/84-85) also with effect from 1-8-1984, they classified their products as "waste or scrap of copper arising during the manufacture of ...
Girija Shankar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT103TriDel
1. These are two stay applications filed w.r.t. a common order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad.2. Ld. Counsel stated that both the appellants according to the department were found carrying silver which was recovered by the police from their possession. The police initially treated it as a case of theft and detained the goods and the persons, and subsequently handed them over to the Customs. Their statements were recorded and subsequently a show cause notice was issued and the case was adjudicated confiscating silver and ornaments worth Rs. 99,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Only) according to the department, and both the appellants have been penalised Rs. 10,000/- each.3. It was their contention that the case has been made out against them w.r.t. the Customs Notification No. 76/65 which prohibits import of those goods which have been exported to Nepal from countries other than India. However, the goods did not bear any foreign marking and were of low purity and t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shriram S.S.K. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT142TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department. Heard both sides. The respondents have submitted a refund claim of Rs. 7,32,722.27 for the excess production of sugar produced during the period from 1-5-1983 to 30-9-1983 as per Notification No. 135/83 C.E., dated 30-4-1983. The Assistant Collector, who adjudicated the proceedings, has rejected the rebate claim on the ground that the respondents had produced sugar only during the corresponding period of one year out of the three preceding sugar years and as such they should have worked out the average on the basis of one year only and not on the basis of three sugar years as was done by them for calculating the excess quantity. The Assistant Collector, accordingly, reduced their rebate claim to Rs. 5,57,345.40 only.2. It was the contention of the party before the Collector (Appeals) that clause 3 of the Notification No. 135/83 C.E. only states as to what quantity of sugar production can be taken into consideration while determining the av...
Shalimar Rubber Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(103)ELT217(Del)
ORDER1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9 April, 1996 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal as also to the order dated 5 February, 1997 passed by the Tribunal on an application filed by the petitioner for rectification of the order dated 9 April, 1996. Against the order dated 5 February, 1997 the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides for remedy of reference to this Court under Section 35G of the Act. It may be noticed that the order made on rectification application is an order under Section 35-O of the Act. The order of the Tribunal dated 9th April, 1996 is appealable before Supreme Court as provided in Section 35L of the Act. 2. In view of these alternative remedies we do not think that it is a fit case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Chandrasekharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union...
Airtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)44; 1997(2)ARBLR162(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT582; 1997(42)DRJ110
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. The parties entered into an agreement whereby the petitioner was required, to undertake work for fabrication and erection of 5 numbers refuse compactors of 14 cum capacity each to be mounted on Ashok Leyland Chassis. Disputes arose between the parties and notice was given by the petitioner to the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 11 of the agreement. The respondent vide its letter dated 21st April, 1994, rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator. This letter reads as follows : 'M/s. Airtech (P) Ltd., 20/7, Site 4, Sahibabad Ind. Area, Ghaziabad-201010. Subject : Supply of 5 Nos. Refuse Compactors on Ashok Leyland Chassis. Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No. 7644 dated 25-2-1994, it is to inform that your request for appoint of Arbitrator has been considered and rejected by the Administrator, N.D.M.C. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Mr. D. N. Kashyap)Transport Controller 2. Since the petitioner d...
Dominant Offset Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adamovske Strojimy A.S.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT14; 1997(42)DRJ313; (1998)118PLR66
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This is an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for amendment of paragraph 13 of the petition. The petitioner has filed a petition in this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. In paragraph 13 of the petition, the petitioner stated thus : '13.As regards respondent No. 2 Adamovske Strojimy A.S., 67904 Adamov, Czech Republic, the petitioner in 1982 entered into an agreement for manufacture, use, assemble and sale of one colour offset printing machines which expired in 1990. In the year 1986, during the subsistence of the previous agreement, the petitioner entered into another agreement with the said respondent for manufacture, use, assemble and sale of two colour offset printing machines which is due to expire in July, 1994. During the year, 1992, by virtue of a privatisation process, the original Adast Company at Adamov was divided into three entity independent companies........'After filing of the af...
Daya Nand Chandila Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)26; 68(1997)DLT886
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This second appeal u/Section 100, Civil Procedure Code . brings in challenge the judgment and order dated 30.8.1995 passed by the Add). District Judge, Delhi in Rca No. 71/93 confirming the decree of dismissal of the appellant's suit for permanent injunction as rendered by the Trial Court. (2) The facts which gave rise to this appeal may be shortly stated are that the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining it from demolishing the appellant's house bearing No. WZ-40/1, situated at Village Khayala, New Delhi. The appellant set up the plea that in the year of 1971-72, he had constructed the said house and since then he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof. That on 23.1.1985, the respondent through its employees, attempted to demolish the said house. The defense of the respondent was three-fold. Firstly, it was contended that the land in question comprising of Khasra No. 48/27 belonged to Gaon Sabha o...
Afl Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Veena Trivedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)65; 70(1997)DLT373; 1997(43)DRJ477
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This order will dispose of three applications namely, I.A. Nos. 7369/95, 6295/96 and 4732/95 moved by the plaintiffs M/s. Alf Developers P. Ltd. and Ashok Narang in Suit No. 1410/95. While two applications viz. 4732/95 and 7369/95 are under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, I.A. 6295/96 is under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC. (2) This order will also dispose of two applications being I.A. Nos. 12751/95 and 196/96 in Suit No. 2953/95. The former application has been moved by Smt.Veena Trivedi, plaintiff in that suit, under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and the latter application, has been moved by the applicant, Ashok Narang, under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. For the purpose of narration of facts, reference to the plaintiffs and defendant here-in-after will be relatable to plaintiffs and defendant in Suit No. 1410/95. (3) The defendant acquired plot No. B-25, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi under a perpetual sub lease dated 27th November, 1969 from Journalists Cooperative House B...
Dominant Offset Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adamovske Strojirny A.S.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT157
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioner entered into an agreement with Zavody Vseobecneho Strojirenstvi, hereinafter referred to as Zvs on 12th of July, 1982. In the said agreement, it was stipulated that Zvs had developed, tested and was manufacturing automatic offset press Adast Dominant 714 and that the petitioner was desirous of acquiring the technical documentation and know how for the said product and that Zvs was able and willing to supply the petitioner with the technical documentation, know how and to grant to the petitioner the right to use said documentation and know how for the manufacture, assembly, use and sale of the product. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into the agreements dated 18.7.1986 and 25.7.1986 with Zvs for Adast Dominant 514 and Adast Dominant 725 respectively. Subsequent thereto, it is stated in the petition that disputes arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid two agreements and accordingly the present petition has been filed by the petitioner...
State Bank of India Vs. Agents and Manufacturers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)81; AIR1998Delhi84; [1999]97CompCas538(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT318; 1997(41)DRJ639
J.B. Goel, J. (1) Plaintiff, M/s. Agents & Manufacturers (in Suit No. 224/71) is a partnership firm (hereinafter called the. claimant) and is carrying on business of manufacturing sewing machines bases, covers, tables, cabinets of wood etc. and for this purpose it purchases and maintains stocks of timber, plywood, fittings, materials and block boards and other raw materials etc. It has its office at 131, Chhota Bazaar, Shahdara, and factory and godowns inter alias at premises No. 508, Circular Road, Shahdara, 525/16, Chhota Bazaar, Shahdara, Harsharan Niwas and also at 471, Circular Road, Delhi. (2) For the purpose of its business it has been availing cash credit facilities against hypothecation of its stocks since 1964 from the State Bank of India, Shahdara branch, (hereinafter called the Bank) and the limits of these facilities have been increased from time to time. The credit facilities are (1) Cash Credit Facility on 'Lock and Key' basis, and (2) Cash Credit Facility of 'Factory Ty...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »