Delhi Court August 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.
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT154TriDel
1. In this appeal the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-1-1987 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi has been challenged. By the said order the Collector (Appeals) had upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector dated 22-10-1982 as regards the duty demand for the period 1-3-1975 to 29-4-1975 while remanding the matter back for the balance period of 30-4-1975 to 15-7-1975 for considering the eligibility for exemption under the exemption Notification No. 111/75.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium wire rods from E.G. grade aluminium ingots. By SCN dated 4-5-1982 demand was raised against them alleging short levy in respect of clearance of 532.737 M.T. of Properzi Rods (Aluminium Wire Rods) cleared during the period 1-3-1975 to 14-7-1975. Appellants were also asked to show cause why effective rate of duty on the said Properzi rods should not be demanded since the benefit of the Notification No. 42/75 claimed by appellants was not applicable in their case as Notification ...
Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT148TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty filed with reference to the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur dated 27-3-1997.2. Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants are inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of urea fertilizer which is chargeable to nil rate of duty. For the manufacture of urea, the applicants have purchased raw naphtha from Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) at concessional rate of duty provided under Notification No. 75/84-C.E. Certain quantities of raw naphtha purchased by the applicants was used in the generation of steam and electricity which were further used in the manufacture of ammonia and urea within the factory.Action was initiated against the applicants to deny the concessional rate of duty for the quantity of raw naphtha used in the generation of steam and electricity for further use in the manufacture of urea on the ground that such use of raw naphtha cannot be treated as use in the manufacture of urea in terms of Noti...
F.G.P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT230TriDel
1. The importers filed Bill of Entry for clearance of a Roll Cut Machine seeking classification under Heading 8451.50. The assessment was completed, charging a rate of duty higher than what was warranted for goods falling under this classification. However, the 'blade' which accompanied the machine was separately shown in the bill of entry by the assessing officer and was classified under Heading 8479.89. After clearance of the goods, the importers filed a claim seeking refund of the duty paid on the machine and that which was leviable on a machine falling under 8451.50. The Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claim saying that the machine warranted classification under 8479.89 for which the rate of duty as was paid was correct. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the copy of the bill of entry submitted by the importers in appeal was the triplicate bill of entry, that since the Appraising officer had changed the rate of duty for the Roll Cut Machine as was required for machine fall...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Devi Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT126TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of 23-2-1989. The respondents cleared waste and scrap of brass as turning scrap during the period December, 1986 to June, 1987. It is alleged that the respondents ought to have paid duty on such scrap since the terms of Rules 57F(4), scrap would be cleared only on payment of duty.3. The only ground on which the respondents are required to pay duty on such scrap is that the Notification 172/84-C.E. is not available to them since such scrap ought to have been cleared on payment of duty under Rule 57F(4). Notification 172/84-C.E. exempts copper scrap subject to certain conditions. There is no dispute in regard to the conditions as such. The only dispute is that in terms of Rule 57F(4) such scrap attracts duty. It is true that any waste arising from the processing of input, in respect of which credit has been taken, can be removed only on payment of duty or without payment of duty where it belongs to such class or category of waste as the Centr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Sports Club of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR780(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively, seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following two questions of law (for each of the two years) : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the rent receipts from the members to whom the rooms were let out by the assessed-club along with other facilities were not assessable to income-tax on the doctrine of mutuality 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from swimming pool and stadium should be taxed under the head 'Business' and not under the head 'Income from house property' ?' 2. We have heard and disposed of IT Ref. Nos. 282 & 283 of 1979 [reported as CIT vs. National Sports Club of India between the same parties raising similar questions though for differe...
Afsar HussaIn Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)451; 72(1998)DLT261; 1998(44)DRJ37
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated November 16, 1995 passed by Sri R.K. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The prosecution story is that a secret information was received by the S.H.O. Chandni Mahal on September 23, 1992 at about 6.40 P.M. consequent to which the appellant was apprehended in Gali Rajan Kucha Chelan by the raiding party comprising of Inspector R.K. Budhiraja, SHO, Chandni Mahal, SI Ishwar Singh, ASI Megh Raj, Constables Neelam, Subhash, Parvinder, Jagdish and Pradhan. On search of the appellant conducted before the A.C.P. Darya Ganj (Shri S.D.Sharma), 2 kgs. 50 gms. of charas was found in his bag out of which 50 gms. of charas was segregated to serve as sample. Both the same and the remaining case property were put in pulandas and sealed with the seal of MRS and RK. Sample was sent to the C.F.S.L. for analysis. On conclusion of the investigation charge sheet w...
Bhartiya Construction Co. Vs. Chairman, Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)883; 1997(2)ARBLR369(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT520; 1997(42)DRJ768
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The Claimant M/s Bhartiya Construction Co. (hereinafter called as the Contractor) was entrusted with the work of construction of 504 S.F.S. Cat.II Houses at Sukh Dev Vihar by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called as the Objector). The disputes arose between the parties and they were referred to Mr. V.R. Vaish, arbitrator, who is a retired Director General of Cpwd to adjudicate upon the disputes by Engineer Member of the Objector vide letter dated 10.01.1985. The arbitrator passed the award on 31.10.1988.(2) The period given for completing the construction was 12 months. The date fixed for commencement of the work was 13.06.1982. To begin with, site was handed over to the Contractor on 12.09.1982. It was noticed by the arbitrator that 'piles of the last block and grade beam were completed and handed over for further work to the Claimant only on 08.12.1983. This mean about one and half years after the date of start as per the contract.' Besides the abo...
Parvesh Kumar Sahni Vs. Manjushree Production
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)123; 1997(2)ARBLR446(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT984
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) In this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act it is alleged that the petitioner is carrying on business of telecasting of cinematographic films on Doordarshan Kendras in India under the name and style of M/s. Konca Video of which he is the sole proprietor. Respondent is a film producer and amongst other pictures produced Bhojpuri picture 'Bahina Tore Khatir'. Under the agreement dated August 20, 1988 entered into between the parties at Delhi the respondent assigned to the petitioner telecasting rights of the aforesaid picture for a period of four years at Doordarshan Kendras and all Lpt Centres for a sum of Rs. 40.000.00 . Rs. 5,000.00 were paid by the petitioner on signing of the agreement and a sumofRs.5,000.00 which was to be paid in due course of time, was also paid Along with Rs.2,000.00 to the respondent leaving a balance of Rs. 28.000.00 to be paid on receipt of approval letter for telecasting the picture at Lpt Centres. It is further alleged that un...
Gauri Shankar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)377; 1997(2)ARBLR686(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT734; 1997(42)DRJ738
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The Claimant M/s Gauri Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) was entrusted with the work of construction of local shopping Centre at West of Trilokpuri (opposite Pocket I) Scheme No. 560/2 (Balance Work) by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA). By letter dated 30.09.1992 the Superintending Engineer was appointed as a sole arbitrator by the Engineer member.(2) The contractor made 19 claims and there was no counter claim by the DDA. Mr. Shailash Kapoor argued on behalf of the Dda and Mr. C.R. Soma Shekhran Sr. Advocate argued on behalf of the contractor. The arbitrator had rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Dda that the claims are not arbitrable stating that it had taken to recourse of become a judge of its own course.(3) is No.861/95 is filed by the contractor challenging the award in so far as against it with reference to claim No.18 relating to the rate of interest. The Dda has filed is No. 173/96 challengin...
Bharat Zink (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)866; 68(1997)DLT822; 1997(43)DRJ389
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing pure zinc metal using zinc waste as raw material. It processes zinc ash/zinc skimmings zinc dross/zinc scrap/brass ash and recovers two grades of refined zinc metals. According to the petitioner the production in its factory is dependent upon import of raw material. The import of raw material is governed by the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1990. Section 5 of this Act empowers the Central Government to formulate and announce by notification in the Official Gazette the export and import policy from time to time. In pursuance of this power the Central Government notified the Export and Import Policy for the period 1992-97. Prior to 1st April, 1995 there was no specific entry pertaining to hazardous wastes in the Negative list of imports in the Export & Import Policy, 1992-97. thereforee, import of hazardous wastes as a category was not prohibited or restricted by the Policy. However, in the ame...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »