Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 1 of about 203 results (0.019 seconds)Ashish Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT269TriDel
1. These are three Appeals filed by the above appellants against three different orders of the Collector of Central Excise, Goa imposing various amounts of penalties on the three appellants.2. Ld. Counsel appearing for all the three appellants submits that the issue dealt with in the three Appeals related to duty demand on goods obtained by the breaking of "barges". The demand had been made on the basis of Tariff sub-heading 72.15. The contention of the appellants is that barges are not "ships or boats or other floating structures". They have specifically drawn attention to Chapter sub-heading 89.01 which refers to "barges" as distinct from cruise ships, excursion boats, ferry-boats, cargo ships, and similar vessels for the transport of persons or goods. Ld. Counsel contended that if the intention of the legislature was to include the goods and materials obtained by breaking up of barges also in Heading 72.15 it would have been specifically so provided in that Heading. In view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT48TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Escorts Ltd. is whether the charges of inspection of the goods carried out by M/s.RITES on behalf of their customer, Indian Railways, are to be included in the assessable value of the Railway equipments manufactured by them.2. Shri Dinesh Charak, Manager (Law) of the Appellants, submitted that the Appeal No. E/1621/93-A filed by them involving the same issue has been decided in their favour on 17-9-1998. He, therefore, requested to set aside the impugned order as the demand has been confirmed in the order in question for a different period. We heard Shri K. Srivastava, ld. SDR.3. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we find that the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1324/98, dated 5-10-1998 in Appeal No. E/1621/93-A in the case of the Appellants themselves has held as under : "We find that the appellants have their own testing facilities and after the manufacture of the goods, the same are being tested by them which gives ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sun Beverages (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC447Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. There is, however, an application from the Advocate, Shri A.K. Jain presented by his clerk in the Court praying for decision on merits and on the basis of the submissions made in the form of application. Hence, we have heard the learned JDR, Shri R.S. Sangia in support of the Revenue's appeal.Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows : 1.2 The respondents herein, a manufacturer of aerated waters, filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1987 claiming the benefit of exemption as provided to SSI units under Notification 175/86 (as amended). The said classification list was approved on 5-6-1987 by the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-Original No. 18/Val/1987, dated 5-6-1987 wherein it was held that since the unit was not registered as a Small Scale Industries with the Director of Industries, the benefit of Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 (as amended) could not be extended. The classification list was accordingly approv...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Cotton Spinning Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT841TriDel
1. The respondents, herein are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn classifiable under Chapter 52 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. In the course of manufacture of yarn, hard waste and soft waste are generated. Both types of waste cleared by a 100% EOU to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) were chargeable to duty on ad valorem basis during the relevant period at the rates specified in Notification 97/91-C.E., dated 7-10-1991 (for clearances up to 26-12-1993) and Notification 101/93-C.E., dated 27-12-1993 (for clearances made after this dates). The respondents cleared hard waste and soft waste to the DTA without payment of duty and hence a show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty of Rs. 5,86,7617- and for imposition of penalty for contravention of the relevant rules. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide order dated 10-7-1995 confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,787/- in respect of hard waste but dropped the demand in respect of soft waste, holding that such ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. H.M.T. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT49TriDel
1. This is an application for directions for refund of a sum Rs. 1,52,95,000/- pursuant to the order dated 20-2-1997 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7454/93.2. We have heard Shri Joseph Vellappally, learned Sr. Advocate and Shri Joseph Pookkatt, Advocate, and Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR.3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to set out the brief history of the case. The applicants herein filed a price list in Proforma Part I in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for watch assemblies in respect of sales to dealers in the open market, and also filed another price list in Proforma VI in terms of Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. In respect of goods captively consumed, the applicants declared the assessable value based on the cost of the input and their profit. The price declared in Part I was much higher than that declared by them in Part VI of the price list.Both the price lists were approved by the authorities, and on the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Sahni Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)70ITD481(Delhi)
1. This is assessee's appeal against the order of CIT(A) - XIII, New Delhi, dated 22-11-1990 passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in Appeal No. 517/88-89 for assessment year 1985-86. Following grounds have been raised : "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 47,006 which is reflected as deposit in the bank account being amount received from LIC as income of the appellant without appreciating the fact that confirmation for the above deposit was filed before the same Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for the asst. year 1984-85. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily rejecting the information, explanation and evidence furnished by the assessee to establish that the evidence in support of the source of deposit of Rs. 47,006 had already existed on the records of the Assessing Officer, the same having been filed by the appellant during the assessment proceedings for the asst. year 1984-85. 3. That the learned CIT...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Mullick and ors. Vs. Sita Ram Mullick and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi153; 1999(48)DRJ561
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge passed on 27th February, 1996 whereby the evidence in the two suits has been directed to be recorded on commission and Mr. V.K. Jain, Joint Registrar of this Court and a Member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service has been appointed as a Commissioner for recording of evidence in these matters.2. The main challenge of Mr. Sethi learned counsel for the appellants, is that assuming Court had power to direct recording of evidence on commission despite non-existence of grounds enumerated in Order 26 Code of Civil Procedure, the power has not been exercised on sound judicial principles. The thrust of the argument of Mr. Sethi is that delay in disposal of the suits by itself is and cannot be the sole ground to direct the recording of evidence on commission. Learned counsel contends that the only ground on which the impugned order was made was the likely delay in disposal of suits and thus the order is not...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)445; 76(1998)DLT457; 1999(49)DRJ766
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. There has to be an element of public benefit or philanthropy in the running of the schools. The schools are to be run for public good and not for private gain. The object has to be service to the Society and not to earn profit. The public benefit and not private or benefit to a favoured section of the Society has to be the aim. Keeping these aims and objects in view the schools are required to also follow and comply the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act (for short the Act') and the Rules framed there under (for short 'the Rules') as also the affiliation Bye laws framed by Central Board of Secondary Education ('the Board' for short). The schools are also required to comply the conditions upon which the land may be allotted to it by a public authority on concessional rates for setting up of a school building and its playground etc.2. The bone of contentions in these petitions is the order issued by the Director of Education. The Director of Education, Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Vij Vs. the Chief of Army Staff and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)497; 77(1999)DLT473; 1998(47)DRJ778
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Rule. 2. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition has challenged the order of termination dated 1.9.1998 of her service. Mr. CM Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has at the outset contended that the impugned order has been issued without any show cause notice or any allegation of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. He has further contended that the impugned order has been issued without giving the notice of three months as provided under the terms of employment. The petitioner was appointed in terms of appointment letter dated 18.7.1988. Following terms and conditions are relevant for determining the controversy between the parties:-'You will be on probation for one year and your services can be terminated after giving one notice on either side without assigning any reason. On successful completion of probation period you will be granted one year extension of service at a time. Your services can be terminated by giving three ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Construction Corporation Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)661; 1999(1)ARBLR272(Delhi); 77(1999)DLT165; 1997(43)DRJ243
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J. 1. An award dated January 17,1994 rendered by Shri Dandage, sole arbitrator was filed before the Court. 2. On the filing of the said award notices were issued to both the parties vide order dated August 12, 1996. The petitioner filed objections against the said award (vide I.A. No. 11143/96) under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act. The respondent did not prefer any objections against the said award despite service of notice on them. However, they filed a reply to the objections preferred by the petitioner.3. It has been urged for and on behalf of the objector that there is an error apparent on the face of the award inasmuch as the award has not been rendered on merits. The learned arbitrator fell into a grave error by coming to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was barred by time. The claimant failed to invoke the arbitration clause within a period of 90 days of the preparation of the final bill as per the conditions of the contract. The learne...
Tag this Judgment!