Delhi Court August 1997 Judgments

Transfer Industry Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT562TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Baroda dated 13-1-1992/21-2-1992.2. Learned Counsel stated that the issue relates to the classification and clearance of Ibuprofen I.P.3. The appellants are manufacturer of drugs and medicines and had been regularly filing classification list for approval in respect of the items in question also. They have filed, during the relevant period, the classification lists in which they had declared the item as well as the units for the purpose of assessment and the classification lists had been duly approved finally by the concerned Assistant Collector from time to time. The relevant period in question is March, 1986 to July, 1986 and in the classification list, they had claimed classification under Heading 3003.20 and nil rate of duty under the tariff and had cleared the goods accordingly. Subsequently in 1988, the Central Excise Officers visited their factory and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on ...

Vishal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT645TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether deemed Modvat credit can be availed by a unit enjoying exemption under Notification No. 1/93 after crossing the aggregate value limit of Rs. 75 lakh.2. Following six appeals are on the above issue : (1) A.No.E/441/96-NB Vishal Steel Rolling Mills (2) E/442/96-NB Vivek Re-rolling Mills (3) E/443/96-NB Bajrang Steel Rolling Mills (4) E/444/96-NB Vivek Re-rolling Mills (5) E/445/96-NB Bajrang Steel Rolling Mills (6) E/452/96-NB Indian Mechanical Works 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants are a re-rolling mill without a furnace or melting arrangements. They procure materials from the market and claim the benefit of deemed Modvat credit in terms of Government of India Order No. TS/86/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994. In respect of ingots and re-reliable materials of iron and steel purchased from outside and lying in stock on or after 1st day of April, 1994. The Department alleged that since the appellants had crossed the aggr...

Surjeet Singh Mahan Sing Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)64ITD104(Delhi)

1. These are three appeals for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. The following is the family tree in order to have correct appreciation of facts in this case :Jasbir Kour (Daughter of S. Mahan Singh)Kuldeep Singh (Husband of Smt. Jasbir Kour) 2. The assessee in these appeals is a HUF called M/s. Surjeet Singh Mahan Singh. The assessee filed wealth-tax returns on 9-12-1986 for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 disclosing different amounts of net wealth. The assessee purported to file them as returns filed in amnesty period which started from 15-11-1985 and closed on 31-3-1987. On 4-2-1986, there was a search in the premises of S.Kuldeep Singh at 12/3, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi. During the course of search, the key of the locker which was in the name of Smt. Jasbir Kour in Bank of India, Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi was found. Jewellery worth of Rs. 9,81,662 was found in the locker. Smt. Jasbir Kour in her statement stated that the jewellery partly belongs to ...

Payal JaIn Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT80

Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) The petitioner filed this writ petition for a direction to respondents, namely, the Central Board of Secondary Education and the Principal, Happy School, Padam Chand Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi to allow the petitioner to appear in Class Xii examination which commenced on 2nd March, 1996. Since admit card had been denied to the petitioner on the ground of shortage of attendance, the petitioner also prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1, Cbse to condone the shortage of attendance and to issue admit card. The stand taken by respondent No. 1 in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had only less than 60 per cent attendance, that the maximum condensation permissible is up to 15 per cent and that even if the full benefit of condensation is given, the petitioner cannot satisfy the requirement of attendance. (2) Admittedly, the second respondent had written a letter dated 23rd February, 1996 to respondent No. 1 informing that the school had conducted extra clas...

M.R. Goyal Vs. Usha International Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)75; [1998]93CompCas634(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT615; 1997(43)DRJ543

Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) This Order will dispose of plaintiffs' application (IA 4800/97), filed under Order Xxxix, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the CPC') and the application (IA 5642/97), filed on behalf of defendant No. 1, under Order Xxxix, Rule 4 read with Section 151. CPC. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned two applications lie in narrow compass. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, declaration and directions assailing the notice dated the 29th April, 1997 (Annexure-A), issued by defendant No. 1 Company, calling for the `Extraordinary General Meeting' (`EGM' for short) of the members of Usha International Limited on 29th May, 1997 with the prayer that a decree declaring that notice dated 29th April, 1997, issued by defendant No. 1 Company is bad in law and directing defendant No. 1 Company and/or its promoters to make an offer to the general p...

Shish Pal Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial No. Ll and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT730

Cyriac Joseph, J.(1) Heard Mr. Vohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Luthra learned Counsel for respondent 2. (2) The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by respondent 2 before respondent I under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action of respondent 2 in removing the petitioner from service has been pending for disposal since 3rd August, 1994. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that under Sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the said application had to be heard and disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The proviso to Subsection (5) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act confers power on the Authority to extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing. Since learned Counsel for respondent 2 has no objection in directing respondent 1 to dispose of the abovementioned application expeditiously. I do not consider...

Sushil Kumar Vs. Pran Nath Mehta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)198; 68(1997)DLT907

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Defendants have filed I.A. No. 8638/96 alleging that Suit No. 1124/87 was decided in terms of compromise between the parties but the decree sheet has not been prepared till date as the plaintiff has failed to deposit the requisite Court fee and stamp papers. It is prayed that necessary direction be issued to the plaintiff to deposit the requisite Court fee and file the stamp papers. Registry is also sought to be directed to prepare the decree/sheet. (2) Plaintiff has contested the application by filing reply. It is not denied that the suit was disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. However, it is alleged that the plaintiff's suit for partition of property No. B-36, Nizamuddin East, was not decreed and the matter was compromised on payment of Rs. 4 lakhs to the plaintiff by the defendants. It is denied that any Court fee/ Stamp duty is payable by the plaintiff. (3) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. (4) During the pen...

Vardhaman Spinning and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Veena Kumari Wadhawan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)197; 1997(2)ARBLR680(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT761; 1997(43)DRJ576

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) The appellant (defendant) has been assailing the order dated 31.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 31/95 rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as `The Act') for the stay of further proceedings in the suit. (2) ......... (3) It is not in dispute that the defendant was inducted in the suit premises pursuant to the unregistered lease deed dated 1.11.1980 by a writing on a stamp paper of Rs. 2.00 at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,400.00 . It is also not disputed that the said unregistered lease deed contained Clause 4(II) where by the lessee reserved the right to extend the lease for further periods of four year's on the same terms and conditions as of the initial lease deed by paying 10% increased rent over the rent paid for the last period of lease. The said clause also required that the lessee shall intimate the lessor, by registered letter three months before the expiry of each term ...

Dr. S.K. Sharma Vs. Divisional Traffic Manager, Northern Railways

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. S.K. Sharma, appellant for short, travelled from Kalka to Delhi by Himalyan Queen train No. 4096 on 24.11.1993. He had to return to Kalka to attend the hearing of a case on 2nd December, 1993. He, therefore, made a requisition for one berth in Second Class A.C. by Kalka Mail train No. 2311 for the return journey from Delhi to Kalka on 1.12.1993. The reservation clerk wrongly issued ticket for the return journey. It was wrong in two respects, (i) the ticket was issued from Kalka to Delhi instead of Delhi to Kalka, and (ii) instead of train being 2311 it was issued for train No. 2312. The complainant bonafide believed that the ticket issued was according to the requisition made by him in writing. About 15 minutes before the departure of the train on 1.12.1993 he found his name absent from the reservation chart. He surrendered the wrong ticket as advised and bought a new ticket for First Class which was unreserved. The comp...

Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT657TriDel

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of fabrics, had filed price lists showing the wholesale prices and on approval of the same, was clearing goods on payment of appropriate duty. In respect of the period from 24-2-1984 to 31-7-1985, it was found that over and above the approved price, appellant had collected Re. 1 /- per invoice from the buyers and had not paid duty on this extra amount. Show cause notice dated 18-11-1985 was issued alleging deliberate suppression of collection of extra amount with intention to evade excise duty and proposing demand of duty on the extra amount collected. Appellant resisted the notice contending that the extra amount was collected by way of stationery charges and for sending invoices to the buyers by post and, therefore, the same cannot be included in the assessable value. Overruling this contention, the Additional Collector of Central...