Delhi Court September 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat Bottling Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT330TriDel
1. These appeals are heard and disposed of together since they involve an identical question. We have heard both sides.2. The common respondent in these appeals, engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters, had filed several sets of price lists for different periods claiming trade discount at the rates indicated therein.Assistant Collector passed separate orders disallowing the claim for deduction of discount. Collector (Appeals) reversed these orders and allowed deduction of discount. These orders are now challenged by the department.3. Sales by the respondent are to wholesalers, who in turn, effect sales to retailers who include railway canteens and other canteens like Airport canteens, Cinema Theatre canteens and the like. In respect of each period respondent had filed 3 sets of price lists, one price list without any claim for deduction, another price list claiming deduction of trade discount at a particular rate and the third price list claiming deduction of trade discount at a ...
Das and Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT296TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 28-3-1990.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are a licenced SSI unit, engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 34. They filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1986 regarding various products declaring 'DASOL PV in Part III. This item is prepared out of polyvinyl alcohol powder purchased from market and diluted with water and is so produced without the aid of power. The classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on 22-8-1986 with a remark 'subject to positive test result'. The assessees, in the meanwhile, had effected clearances without payment of duty as the process did not amount to manufacture.3. The authorities drew samples on 27-10-1986. The appellants also filed RT-12 returns and the same were assessed.4. It was their contention that in the past, prior to 28-2-1986, the item was considered as non-excisable as there was no chemical chan...
Indian Music Industry (imi) Vs. Charanajit Gupta @ Chandi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT60
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act), has been filed for initiating action of criminal contempt against the respondents on the plea that by preventing the Local Commissioner from executing the commission on 29th August, 1996, in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 26th August, 1996 in Suit No. 2016/96, the respondents have not only deliberately and wilfully flouted the said order, they treated the two Local Commissioner, who visited the premises of the respondents as officers of this Court to enforce and execute the orders passed this Court, with utmost disrespect and contempt, and have thus, scandalised and lowered the authority of this Court; prejudiced and interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration to justice, thereby committing a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. (2) The petition initially filed on 29th August, 1997, was refiled on...
Vinod Bahl Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)189; 68(1997)DLT772; 1997(43)DRJ559
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The petitioner seeks grant of probate in respect of the Will dated the 13th June, 1990, executed by his mother late Smt. Tej Kumari. In terms of the provisions of Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as The Act'). The petition for probate would not lie inasmuch as the deceased did not name any person as `executor' in the Will. I would, thereforee, treat this petition as one for grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.(2) Notice of the filing of the petition was given to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, to the near relatives (Smt. Usha Marwah daughter of the Smt. Tej Kumari the deceased) and a citation was also published in the daily `The Statesman' (New Delhi Edition). No objection has been filed by any one. Smt. Usha Marwah the daughter of the deceased has filed an affidavit dated the 5th January, 1994, stating therein that she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed.(3) The petiti...
Jagjeewan Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT67
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This writ petition the petitioner has challenged the action of respondents 3 and 4 dated 5th August, 1997 with regard to taking over the symbolic possession of the land alleged to be in occupation of the petitioner,Society. Further the petitioner has sought direction from this Court to restrain the respondent from taking over physical possession of the land in question under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) In reply to show cause notice issued with respect to the writ petition respondent No. 4, i.e. the Delhi Development Authority has filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto. It is the case of the petitioner-Society that it purchased the land in question from the erstwhile owners through an agreement to sell dated 21st July, 1990. The other undisputed facts in this case arc that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the land in question was issued on 23rd ...
Jai Parkash Tyagi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)873; 68(1997)DLT910
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) PETITIONER'S land in Village Bharoula, Delhi (North Zone) was acquired by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned development of Delhi. The petitioner put forth his claim for allotment of an alternative plot of land. The Delhi Administration recommended for allotment of plot of 400 sq.mtr. in lieu of the petitioner's land acquired by the Government. By the letter dated 12.5.1992 the respondent offered to the petitioner to allot a plot measuring 209 sq. mtr in Narela resettlement scheme on payment of provisional rate of Rs. 715.00 per sq. mtr. Thereafter, by the letter dated 18.1.1993 the respondent offered to the petitioner a plot measuring 334 sq. mtr. in Narela resettlement scheme at a provisional rent of Rs. 1550.60 per sq. mtr. The petitioner deposited Rs. 5,000.00 only by way of earnest money as demanded by the respondent vide letter dated 20th April, 1990 (Annexure B). The contention of the petitioner is th...
Steel Authority of India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT220TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Indore dated 8-1-1992.2. Learned counsel stated that the dispute relates to eligibility or otherwise to benefit of exemption Notification No. 217/86 in respect of Mortars being manufactured by them and captively consumed for lining of furnaces and their repair and maintenance.3. It was their submission that the product was eligible for this benefit but the same has been denied to them. The Assistant Collector has passed an ex parte order on the ground that it has not been shown that it was being used as input within the factory of production in or in relation to manufacture of final products and the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed this order and also not considered the alternative prayer for the benefit of Notification No. 281 /86.4. It was their submission that the appellants are a well-known manufacturer of steel and in their Bhilai plant also, they manufacture Mortars to join bricks in the lining of the furnaces requi...
Krone Communications Limited Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT486TriDel
1. M/s. Krone Communications Limited, Bangalore were engaged in the manufacture of 'telephone connectors' including back panel connectors.They had imported 2000 numbers of Back Mount Frame 2/10.11 way [flat] and described them in the Bill of Entry as 'telecommunication components'. They sought classification of the back mount frame under sub-heading No. 8538.90 of the Customs Tariff and claimed concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 134/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 as amended. The Asstt. Collector, Customs under his order dated 15-5-1990 observed that the back mount frame was nothing but part of the transmission equipment used in telecommunication like automatic telephone exchange. He classified the goods in question under sub-heading No. 8517.90 of the Customs Tariff. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bangalore held that the goods imported were steel frame on which connectors were to be mounted and they were used to be ultimately in telephone exchange.2. Unde...
Ashok India Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT659TriDel
1. These are a batch of four appeals filed by M/s. Ashok India Engineering Works and three partners thereof, challenging the demand of duty and imposition of penalty in terms of order-in-original dated 24-4-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad. The said order was passed by the Collector holding that the appellant firm had cleared certain excisable goods without payment of duty. The longer period of limitation was invoked alleging that the appellants had failed to file classification list and had not complied with the required excise formalities including payment of duty. Penalty was imposed on the firm under Rule 173Q while the partners were proceeded against under Rule 209A.2. Shri Rohan Shah, learned Counsel for the appellants, stated that, on merits, he could not advance any argument as it is the admitted position that the notification which was in force earlier under which they had cleared their goods without payment of duty, was not applicable to their goods...
Shriram Refrigeration Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT154TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shriram Refrigeration Industries, the matter relates to the classification of cam rings. These cam rings were parts of the final forming machine which were used for the manufacture of stators and rotors of the motors of hermetically sealed compressors.The final forming machine in which the cam rings were used works on hydraulic pressure and the function, of the cam rings was to give equal distance/shape to the winding coils of the motor stators. Appellants sought classification of the above-mentioned cam ring under sub-heading No. 8479.90 of the Customs Tariff. Heading No. 84.79 covers "Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter 84." In this heading, such machine as for public works, for extraction or preparation of animal or fixed vegetable fats or oils or cable making machine, machine for treating metal, or machine for mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting etc....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »