Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sham Agro Metal Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT376TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the above Reference application seeking to refer the following question said to have arisen out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1389/96-NB, dated 14-5-1996. "Whether GP1 endorsed after 31-3-1994 but on or before 30-6-1994 are valid documents for availing Modvat credit as per Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994, since GP 1 ceases to be a prescribed document after 31-3-1994." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots falling under sub-heading 7206.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing credit of duty paid on inputs used in relation to the manufacture of finished products. They took credit of Rs. 83,363/- on the basis of GP 1s issued on or before 31-3-1994 but endorsed subsequent to that date. Taking of credit on the strength of these gate passes was objected to by the department and proceedings for recovery of the said amount were initiated result...

Krishna Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)899; 67(1997)DLT900; 1998(44)DRJ417

C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is moved by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to file the original Award dated 26th April, 1991 together with other proceedings pertaining to Agreement No. 31/EE/DDIV/79-80 in respect of work titled 'C/o 612 MIG houses at Bodella, Pocket CC-1 including internal development SH : C/o. 264 Houses, Group IV'. 2. The petitioner was awarded work on 23rd February, 1980 by respondent No. 1 and Agreement Bearing No. 31/EE/DDIV/79-80 was entered into between the parties. The completion of the work as alleged in the petition was carried on beyond the stipulated period due to delays, breaches and delayed supply of materials by respondent No. 1. The work was completed in May 1982. The agreement entered into between the parties contained an arbitration clause (Clause 25) for reference of all the disputes to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Engineering Member of respondent Delhi Development Authority. The levy of compensation for de...

Union Bank of India Vs. Gopal Dal Mills

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT22

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 2,66,677.60 with costs and interest thereon. The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 66 / 80, at Samachar Marg, Fort, Bombay and Branch Office at various places in India including one at 3581, Chawri Bazar, Delhi 6. Shri Kamal Kumar Gupta who has instituted the suit and signed and verified the plaint was the Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank and has been authorised to institute proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff by virtue of Power of Attorney executed in his favour. He is duly conversant with the facts of the case and able to be deposed the same. (2) Defendant No. 1 is a partnership concern carrying on business of manufacture and supply of all kinds of pulses and defendant 2 and Hari Prashad, since deceased, were the partners of defendant No. 1. Defendants 4 and 5 guaranteed the due repayment of t...

Eastern Telecom and Technology Ltd. Vs. B.C.C. Fuba India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT592

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.5.1995,bywhichthe learned Additional District Judge found the application of the petitioner under Order xxxvii, Rule 3, Cpc, for leave to contest without any merit and not raising any triable issue. The application was dismissed. However, the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit against the petitioner only for a sum of Rs. 1.01,640.00 without any order as to cost and interest.(2) The facts giving rise to the impugned order are that the petitioner had placed orders on the respondent for manufacture and supply of Mother Boards, Equalizer Boards and Led Board with components, vide purchase order Nos. 229 dated 17.7.1992,230dated 17.7.1992and231 dated 18.7.1992. The goods were required by the petitioner for being exported to its foreign buyers. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was to first submit the samples to the petitioner by 10.8.1992. The said samples ...

United Bank of India Vs. R.P. Chhabra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Mr. R.P. Chhabra, hereinafter referred to as the complainant is sole proprietor of M/s. Chhabra and Co. He has a current account No. 1218 with United Bank of India Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The complainant issued cheque No. 007028 dated 9.8.91 for Rs. 24,965/- in favour of Mr. J.D. Malhotra and is stated to have despatched the same under Registered cover to Mr. Malhotra on 12.8.91. Mr. J.D. Malhotra did not receive the cheque and accordingly he informed the complainant who in turn made enquiry from the bank and he was told that the said cheque had been paid on 17.8.91 as a bearer cheque. The complainant requested the Bank vide his letter-dated 26.8.91 to investigate the matter. The bank, after necessary enquiry, informed the complainant vide letter dated 30.8.91 that the crossing on the cheque had been cancelled and the cheque made open by the drawer of the c...

Jaypee Reva Cements Vs. Collector of Central Excise and C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT167TriDel

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement. Consequent to the introduction of Modvat for the capital goods, the appellants filed a declaration in terms of Rule 57T and took Modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods.The department alleged that on certain items the Modvat credit of duty as capital goods was not admissible and accordingly denied the benefit of Modvat credit on these items. Against this decision of the Collector, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The Collector disallowed the Modvat credit on specified goods as switches/starter/power transducer, spares for MOCB, cables, aluminium coil, chain pully, locking ring, speed controller, conveyor belt, level controller, thermo-couple, scrap roller and filter bags. The appellants grouped all the products in the following 4 categories :- (a) Items used in conveyor system like conveyor belt, switches, starter, power transducer. (b) Control equipments like ...

Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC591Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Limited, Rajasthan, the issue for our consideration is whether the Sprinkler Equipment manufactured by the appellants was an Agricultural Implement for the purposes of exemption under Notification No. 64/86-CE., dated 10-2-1986 as amended from time to time during the period 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1988.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur under his Order-in-Original dated 21-12-1988 observed that the assessee was not manufacturing Agricultural Implements but was manufacturing a complete Sprinkler Irrigation System consisting of Aluminium/light galvanised sheet pipes, main line couplers, sprinkler couplers, screwed/flanged coupler bends, tees, end couplers plugs, riser 'quick couplers, riser pipes, battens, gaskets, [clamps] GN Hooks sprinklers, Nuts & Bolts, Sprinkler adopters, reducer couplers, [increaser] couplers, riser outlet tees, mainline valve couplers, insert valve openers, ball joint riser couplers, ball valve couple...

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT107TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No.1650-C.E./CHD/91, dated 21-10-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. In this case, the Modvat credit in respect of the Nickel catalyst used in manufacture of final product soap, is denied on the ground that nickel catalyst was neither used as an input nor formed a part of the final product.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that during the process of manufacture of soap nickel catalyst is used for hydrogenation. The appellant availed Modvat credit paid on the nickel catalyst used in the manufacture of soap as an input after filing proper declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further submitted that under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, there is no requirement that the inputs should be present in the final product. He further submitted that the use of Nickel catalyst is necessary for chemical expediency of manufacture of so...

Chemical Construction Vs. Chemical Construction

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross-appeals one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 13th September, 1996, for asst. yr. 1993-94.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of designing, supply, installation and erection of solvent extraction plant on a turnkey basis. During the year under consideration, the assessee completed few projects of supply of plants to different customers, most of whom are limited companies. The various other projects were also in progress.The AO examined the profits shown by the assessee in various projects completed during the year as well as the projects which were in progress at the end of the close of the year. The AO in view of the elaborate reasons mentioned in the assessment order made an aggregate addition of Rs. 2,87,35,776 in the income declared from contract for turnkey project of supplying solvent extraction plant to some of the customers. The AO has given detailed reasons in support of making such additi...

Apparel Export Promotion Council and Another Vs. A.K. Chopra and Other ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)646; 68(1997)DLT303; 1997(42)DRJ526

Mahinder Narain, J. 1. These matters can be disposed of at the show cause state. Admit. The allegations which had been made in this case, were A. K. Chopra, P.S. To Chairman, APEC had tried to assault Ms. Suchitra Vishnoi, Clerk-cum-Typist physically. This assault is alleged to have taken place in Taj Palace Hotel. The allegation was that Ms. Suchitra Vishnoi was taken to a room on the pretext of taking dictation from the Chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council. We have beer, taken in detail through the evidence/deposition of Ms. Suchitra Vishnoi. No part of that evidence discloses that A. K. Chopra even managed to make the slightest physical contact with the lady. The entire deposition relates that A. K. Chopra tried to touch her. As we have said that no attempts made, allegedly by A. K. Chopra succeeded in making physical contact with Ms. Suchitra Vishnoi, even in the narrow confines of a Hotel 'lift'. 2. To our mind, on such evidence as that was produced before the Enquiry ...