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.
Gec Alsthom India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT473TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 23-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, confirming duty demand of Rs. 15,83,300.67 in respect of period from 28-8-1980 to 27-8-1985 and of Rs. 23,35,381.09 in respect of period from 28-8-1985 to 31-5-1987 and imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. Appellant was manufacturing electric motors, transferring the same to a job worker M/s. Bluemount Switchgears who by adopting certain processes was converting them into monoblock pumps and returning the pumps to the appellant by sending the same to the depots of the appellant. At the relevant time, by virtue of Notification No. 57/78, dated 1-3-1978, monoblock pumps were exempt from payment of Central Excise duty. Appellant was paying duty on electric motors. Originally, appellant submitted price list in Part I showing the assessable value and claiming deduction of discount. Subsequently, appellant filed fresh price list in Part VIB under Rule 6(b)(ii) of th...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hindalco Industries Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT328TriDel
1. By the captioned Reference Applications, the applicants have submitted that the following question of law arises out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/444-445/97-NB, dated 18-3-1997 :- "Whether item namely Sodium Sulphate, Cathode Block, Glass Filter Cloth, Activated Carbon and Refractory Cement said to be not directly used in the manufacture of Aluminium and products thereof or are used as part of plant and machinery for production of Aluminium and products thereof can be considered as inputs eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not?" 2. Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR appearing for the applicant Commissioner submits that for taking Modvat credit a particular product should be an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. He submits that these products are for the purpose of maintenance of machinery and do not take part in the actual process of manufacture. He submits that since the above items even remotely do not take ...
Gopal Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT66TriDel
1. Order-in-Original dated 31-8-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming duty demand to the extent of Rs. 4,10,393.47 and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of figured glass falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 23A, was paying duty on the basis of approved assessable value.3. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period 1981-1984. In the course of investigation, several documents were seized from the premises of the appellant and many of appellant's customers and others.Investigation having showed that the appellants had collected extra amounts over and above the invoice prices during the period in question, collected certain amounts as commission from buyers and sales representatives of the appellant, sold some items at higher prices, show cause notice dated 28-4-1986 was issued stating the above facts in detail and proposing demand of differential duty on the aforesaid three elem...
Precision Tool Room Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT57TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original dated 16-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, confirming demand of duty of Rs. 3,26,771.85 on electric motors manufactured and cleared by the appellant without payment of duty during the period from 1981-82 to 1981-86 as demanded in the show cause notice and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on the appellant under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Certain electric motors seized earlier were ordered to be released.2. Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of electric motors since 1974 in premises L 84, in the Industrial Estate allotted by GIDC. Appellant had availed benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 71/78, 80/80 and 83/83, which exempted small scale industries from payment of duty for goods manufactured and cleared up to the value of Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 7.5 lakhs and Rs. 7.5 lakhs respectively. Appellant was filing declarations indicating the annual production to be of the v...
R.S.P. Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT109TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 28-2-1997, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,85,118/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, Saharanpur on the ground that the appellants had taken credit on undeclared inputs and that they had failed to file Modvat declaration for the changed sub-headings of acrylic fibre/acrylic waste.2. It was contended by the appellants that they had filed declarations under Rule 57G on 28-3-1994, declared the process of manufacture along with declaration under Rule 57E and they had also filed a declaration under Rule 57F(3). It was seriously contended that the declarations and the invoices tallied and that the allegation of taking Modvat credit without declaring is totally not substantiated by the department.However, both the authorities without due verification of the declarations or the invoices or even the case law have rejected their pleas and has confirmed the demand besides impos...
Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)260; [1999]97CompCas394(Delhi); 49(1997)DLT425
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by the petitioner praying for winding up of the respondent-company on the ground of its inability to pay the debt to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent-company is indebted to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 13,63,886 along with interest thereon at 18 per cent. per annum from July 28, 1993. 2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that the petitioner is the holder of three bills of exchange dated June 28, 1993, and paid the amount as mentioned in the said bills of exchange to Rahat Steels Pvt. Ltd. The respondent-company, according to the petitioner, is liable to pay to the petitioner the total sum of the three bills of exchange amounting to Rs. 13,63,886. The petitioner has specifically stated that on or about June 28, 1993, Rahat Steels Pvt. Ltd. drew in favor of and delivered to the petitioner, three bills of exchange bearing the f...
Nanda and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)554; 71(1998)DLT530
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against award and decree dated 4.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi determining the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for acquisition of their land situated in Village Narela, Delhi. (2) The piece of land in question was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 30.10.1963. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.1.1969 and Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22.9.1986. (3) The question of market value of land in the same village, acquired by the very same notification, was the subject-matter of Rfa No. 209/93: Ram Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 4.2.1997. In that case, the market value was assessed @ Rs. 25,000.00 per bigha. (4) Accordingly, we hold that market value of the land of the appellant in the pre...
Jagpal Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)594; 70(1997)DLT435; 1997(43)DRJ434
Usha Mehra, J. (1) In all these writ petitions since a common question of law is involved, thereforee, they are taken up together and disposed of by one order. (2) The principal questions of law raised in these petitions are: 1.What should be the qualifying service for eligibility of pension, particularly when this condition was not laid down in the pension scheme made applicable to the employees of the respondent? 2. Whether after having had the petitioners to seek voluntary retirement, the respondent can withdraw any of the benefit in this case ex-gratia payment in case pension is granted to the petitioners. 3. Whether those petitioners who did not opt within 30 days are barred from claiming the pension? 4. Whether the employees who stood super-annulated prior to November, 1992 but after August, 1981 are not entitled to opt for pension(3) In order to appreciate and dispose of the above points raised, let us understand relevant facts and the rules on the point which are necessary for ...
Anandi Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)131; 69(1997)DLT725; 1997(43)DRJ660
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1385/1997 and 1387/1997. (2) These writ petitions are for seeking an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents for issue of an allotment letter in respect of alternative plot of the same market value ad measuring 400 sq. yds. and 300 sq. yds. respectively at Siri Fort Road/Factory Road as per the policy of the respondents. These cases have got chequered history. In 1952 petitioner's husband, Shri Bhola Dutt and Shri V.D. Sharma, husband of petitioner in Cw 1387/1997, purchased from Sunlight of India Insurance Company Limited free-hold developed plots bearing No. 46 and Plot No. 18, Sunlight Estate, ad measuring 400 sq. yds. and 300 sq. yds vide registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.1952 and 15.5.1953 respectively. According to the petitioners, plots had been in possession of the petitioners' husband and the petitioners. The petitioner's husband, Shri Bhola Dutt, an army officer, and Shri V.D. Sharma, an ex Dire...
Amar Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT592; 1997(43)DRJ620
A.B. Saharya, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against award and decree dated 8.1.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, determining the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for acquisition of their land situated in Village Kureni, Delhi.(2) The piece of land in question was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 30.10.1963. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.1.1969 and Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 6.1.1981.(3) The question of market value of land in the same village, acquired by the very same notification, was the subject-matter of Rfa No. 598/93, Mange Ram v. Union of India, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.9.1996. In that case, the market value was assessed @ Rs. 25,000.00 per bigha.(4) Accordingly, we hold that market value of the land of the appellant in the present case also shoul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »