Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 14 of about 214 results (0.020 seconds)Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. P.M. Mohammed and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)143; 71(1998)DLT759
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is filed under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the Arbitration Agreement dated 14th November, 1983 in Court and for an order for reference of the disputes between the parties to the named Arbitrator therein Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate. (2) The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002. It carries on the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles. It is further stated that Shri A.K. Ahluwalia is the General Attorney of the petitioner-Company and is duly authorised to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute this suit. (3) The petitioner, it is stated, on 14th November, 1983 on receipt of proposal from respondent No. 1 as hirer and respondent No. 2 as guarantor for hiring a Tata Diesel Truck Model 1993 bearing Engine No. 692-D01-7-76870, chassis No. 344-073- 7-73734; and Registration No. KEF-7048 executed a Hir...
Tag this Judgment!Tirath Raj Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)652; 68(1997)DLT635; 1997(42)DRJ632
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioners who are engineers holding degrees in Engineering (hereinafter referred to as the `Graduate Engineers') are aggrieved by the approval granted by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the `UPSC') vide its letter dated 19.10.1989 bearing No. F/3/24(9)/89-RR to the Resolution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for amendment of the existing recruitment regulations for the post of Superintending Engineers. As a result of the aforesaid amendment, the existing requirement of possessing a degree in Engineering for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) was omitted and instead the minimum qualification of at least a Diploma in Civil Engineering was prescribed. The Upsc while giving approval further desired that the Municipal Corporation should review the existing Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) keeping in view the position in the DWS&D; Undertaking. (2) The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Chemical Construction International (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)679
ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :These cross-appeals one by the assessed 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 assessed 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 assessed 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 assessed 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 suppor...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT515TriDel
1. The issues involved for determination in the above appeal are (a) eligibility to Modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by SAIL which has been denied on the ground that the invoice does not contain the particulars of supplier/manufacturer of inputs as required under Notification 33/94, dated 4-7-1994 and (b) whether duty is payable on goods exported for which the assessees produced Form H certificate issued by the Sales Tax office. I am of the view that the appeal requires to be admitted for hearing.2. The stay application is now taken up for hearing. Credit of Rs. 7,770/- has been disallowed on the ground that the SAIL invoice dated 7-2-1995 did not contain the details of supplier/manufacturer as required under Rule 57GG read with Notification No. 33/94-C.E., dated 4-7-1994. It is seen from the copy of the invoice, which has been filed by the appellants, that the invoice covers different stock yards of SAIL and the goods have been received by the appellants from the stoc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Tata Exports Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)LC294Tri(Delhi)
1. Since both the appeals involve a common issue, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The issue for decision in this appeal is the eligibility of Motor running capacitors imported by the respondents herein to the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus., which is available inter, alia to capacitors, other than power capacitors - according to the Revenue, the benefit cannot be extended to the imported goods as they are a type of power capacitors, as seen from the Indian Standard IS 1985 (Part XL 11) 1977 Electro Technical Vocabulary Part XL 11 which is the book for IS Standards for definition of Power Capacitors.3. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, learned DR and Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Advocate. The Classified List of Indian Standards - Electro-technical complied by Bureau of Indian Standards includes Motor capacitors under the heading 'Power Capacitors' and the IS Standard therefore is IS 2993 : 1975. Some of the other power capacitors that are shown in ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Steel Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT342TriDel
1. These are five appeals filed by M/s. Maharashtra Steel Industries being aggrieved with the common order-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad. In his adjudication order, the Additional Collector of Central Excise had confirmed the demand of Rs. 49,031.14, had imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on M/s.Maharashtra Steel Industries and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on each of the four persons.2. The matter relates to the applicability of exemption Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983, in a case where the inputs had been received from the manufacturer under gate passes in which the nil duty had been shown. The adjudicating authority had taken a view that as no duty had been paid on the inputs the final products were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1988.3. Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant submitted that during the relevant time, there was no such condition in the exemption notification that the benefit will not be...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Udyog Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT522TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. R.M. Udyog, the matter relates to the applicability of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 in a case where the SSI registration was obtained by the appellant on 27-6-1988 and the goods have been cleared on concessional rate of duty during the month of January, February, 1988 and March to June, 1988.2. Shri Y.N. Chopra, ld. Consultant submitted that the appellants had applied for the SSI registration certificate in December, 1987. This fact was mentioned at the back of the classification list but the Director of Industries took time and issued the SSI certificate only in the month of June, 1988.3. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in para 5 of his order had observed as under: "5. I have carefully gone through the oral/written submissions made by appellants. I find that this is admitted fact that the appellants were registered as SSI unit by the Directorate of Industry Deptt. on 27-6-1988. They are SSI unit from 27-6-1988 and hence they c...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Golf Club Limited Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)625; AIR1997Delhi347; 68(1997)DLT222; 1997(42)DRJ792
ORDERR. C. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of a demand to the tune of Ks. 4,37,56,295.90 p. on account of properly lux for the period 1-4-1969 to 31-3-1995 raised by the respondent as evidenced by its house tax bill dated 24-11-1994 (Annexure P3). noticed of demand dated 31-3-1995 (Annexure V-2) and letter dated 13-6-95 (Annexure P-1) refusing to recall the recovery on the grounds stated in the letter 4-4-1995 from the petitioner's advocate. 2. The petitioner is a limited company. It holds land measuring about 180 acres in the heart of New Delhi by the side of Wellesley Road. The lease of the land was granted to me petitioner by the Government of India, Ministry of Works Housing and Supply, Land and Development Office, New Delhi on the terms and conditions as contained in the letter dated 23-4-1968 (Annexure P-4). Term of initial allotment was up to 1980 only which term has been extended from lime to lime. Presently the term of the lease stand extended for a period of 20 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Raj Gupta Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)608; 68(1997)DLT62; 1997(42)DRJ510
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-NDMC withholding the release of sanctioned building plans to the petitioners for non-compliance of certain conditions subject to which the respondent had resolved to grant the sanction.(2) The petitioners are owners of the property known as 20, Barakhamba Road New Delhi and measuring about 0.956 acres. This property has been subject matter of a number of litigations, one of them being Union of India Vs . Dev Raj Gupta & Ors : AIR1991SC93 . The dispute was about the payment of conversion charges livable by Delhi Development Authority, the Lessor, as a condition precedent to the grant of its permission or no objection certificate (NOC) to convert the user of the land from residential to non-residential. The dispute has been settled by the Supreme Court on 23.10.90 in accordance with its judgment reported as above.(3) On 5.8.1977 the petitioners moved an application under Section 169 of the Punjab Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Polymer Packaging Pvt. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT287TriDel
1. The captioned two appeals pertain to denial of Modvat credit on inputs supplied by M/s. IPCL. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polythene film. They purchased granules from M/s. IPCL.While scrutinizing the RT-12 Return submitted by the appellants, the Department found certain deficiencies and irregularities and issued two show cause notices to the Appellants. Both the show case notices were adjudicated by common order passed by the Additional Collector confirming the demand of Rs. 5,10,270.35 and a penalty of Rs. 12.00 lakh in one case and Rs. 7,71,707.00 as duty and Rs. 12,00,000/- as penalty in the other case. The ld. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the ld. Additional Collector and hence the appeals before us.2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that Appeal No. E/524/95-NB deals with show cause notice dated 20-4-1992. He submits that in this show cause notice, four credits of duty have been dealt with. The following table...
Tag this Judgment!