Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 7 of about 203 results (0.030 seconds)Polydyne Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT94TriDel
1. Common issues arise for determination in the above appeals; hence they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. In the first 3 appeals the issue relates to classification and determination of duty payable on 18 products such as Amino based silicon, silicon based lacquer emulsion etc. The 4th appeal has been filed by the Revenue. These 4 appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Original No.54/91, dated 7-6-1991 wherein the Department has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 24,34,375.54 (as against the original demand of Rs. 56,67,219.20 raised in the show cause notice), and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on appellant No. 1, Rs. 10,000/- on appellant (who is the chemist of appellant No. 1) and Rs. 50,000/- on appellant No. 3 (partner of appellant No. 1). The Collector has confiscated the seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and has also confiscated land, building, plant, etc. with option to redeem on payment of a fin...
Tag this Judgment!Mukund Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT678TriDel
1. Appellants manufactured and cleared "incomplete pumps of handling water". Such "incomplete pump" has been classified by Collector of Central Excise, Pune under Chapter 84.13 as power driven pump relying on Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules. However, the appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 155/86 was rejected on the ground that the item in question is not "complete pump" in all respects but is "semi-finished" and "incomplete pump".2. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel for appellants Shri R. Sudhinder submits that the order is not correct. He submits that the appellant's case is covered by the decision of CEGAT in Western Refrigeration v.Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 673 (T) wherein the Tribunal held that understanding of the Tariff entry and the Notification entry should be the same when both are worded alike. Shri Sudhinder also submits that the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the Government against this decision of the Tribunal 1996 (83) ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT192TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the spent Nickel Catalyst is an excisable commodity.2. Shri P.K. Mittal, ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondents M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. submitted that the Tribunal in their own case has held vide Final Order No. 835/98-C dated 9-9-98 that the Spent Nickel Catalyst was not excisable commodity. Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR, submitted that as the Nickel catalyst had been used as an input by the Respondents after availing the Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, they could not avail exemption from payment of duty in respect of Spent Nickel catalyst which is a dutiable product under sub-heading 2620.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that the issue regarding the excisability of the impugned product has been decided in the case of C.C.E. Bombay v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Order No.835/98-C, dt. 9-9-98 following ...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Yadav Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)115; 76(1998)DLT722; 1998(47)DRJ738
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. The petitioner has contended that he was initially employed with the respondents as artificer apprentice in the year 1981. He completed 15 years of service in 1996. However, as per the practice of the respondents the petitioner gave his willingness to further serve with the respondents for a period of four years. The willingness was submitted by the petitioner on 4.4.1995. On the basis of the willingness, the petitioner was allowed to continue for a period of four years till 31st January, 2,000. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court in Anuj Kumar Dey v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 1110/92) dated on 28.11.1996, held that the period spent as an apprentice by the employees working with the respondent shall be counted for pensionary benefits. Taking advantage of the Supreme Court decision, the petitioner on 17.7.1997 gave unwillingness certificate to the respondent contending that the prescribed period...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.C.D. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)252; AIR1999Delhi176; 78(1999)DLT601; 1999RLR266
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to refer the disputes, as mentioned in paragraph No.27 of the petition, for adjudication through the process of arbitration in terms of clause 25 of the agreement between the parties.2. The petitioner had three separate electric connections for industrial use and lighting in the three premises belonging to the petitioner obtained from the respondents under regular agreement with the respondents. The respondents issued various bills to the petitioner for the electricity consumed but the petitioner disputed and denied its liability to pay for electricity consumed, as charged, and claimed compensation for the losses suffered by it. According to the petitioner, thus disputes and differences have arisen between the parties on the aforesaid account. The petitioner requested the respondents from time to time to settle the disputes and differences through the process of arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Suri Vs. Surinder Kumar Khullar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)25; 76(1998)DLT536; 1999(48)DRJ299; (1999)121PLR20
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rules 1, 2 & 4 read with Order 16 Rule 19 CPC praying for allowing the plaintiff to examine the plaintiff and other five witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses of the plaintiff, on commission at Calcutta instead of Delhi.2. Suit No.885/1982 was instituted in this Court by the plaintiff seeking for a decree for possession and mesne profit, while Suit No.1342/84 was instituted by the plaintiff in this court for specific performance of an agreement of sale. By an order passed by this court on 29th March, 1995 in Suit No.1342/84 both the aforesaid suits were consolidated and ordered to be tried together. On 27th August, 1996, it was recorded by this court that the list of witnesses of the plaintiff was filed and accordingly Sh.M.L.Mehta, Joint Registrar was appointed as Local Commissioner for recording evidence in this suit. Parties were directed to appear before the Local Com...
Tag this Judgment!Gun Malla Rajgarahia Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)345; AIR1999Delhi243; 79(1999)DLT546; 1999RLR359
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendants, Canara Bank (defendant No.1 and M/s. Venus Paper Mills Limited (defendant No. 2) seeking for passing of a decree for redemption of mortgaged of property bearing No. B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. 2. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that in consideration of grant of certain credit facilities in favor of M/s. Venus Paper Mills Limited,the defendant No. 2 the plaintiff created the mortgage of her property bearing No. B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi by way of deposit of original title deeds. It is further averred that the aforesaid mortgage is only to secure the liability of defendant No. 2 borrower only up to a limit of Rs. 24 lacs. The plaintiff in her plaint has sought for grant of the following reliefs: (a) Pass a decree directing the defendant No. 1 bank to disclose the amount due and to give accounts of the amount due against term loan No. 5/82 in the name of defendant No. 2 along ...
Tag this Judgment!Batra Construction Co. Vs. D.D.A. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)67
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was awarded the work contract for construction of some dwelling units at Dilshad Garden, Delhi by the respondent No.1 and a contract was executed between the parties. During the course of execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties and thereforee, the said disputes were referred to be adjudicated upon through the process of arbitration by appointing respondent No. 2 as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, made and published his award on 14th October, 1987. 2. An objection was filed as against the filing of the aforesaid objection, I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also for the respondent No.1 in respect of the aforesaid objection as also with regard to the issue of making the award a rule of the court. Mr. D.P. Sharma appearing for the petitioner, pressed the objections passed by the arbitrator as against c...
Tag this Judgment!Beg Raj Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ37
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent No.1 for execution of the work of setting up of brick kiln No.1 at Rohini and the said contract was executed between the parties. The said contract contained an arbitration clause being clause No.25, according to Which all matters of disputes were required to be adjudicated upon by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Engineer Member of the respondent No.1. While executing the said contract certain disputes arose and accordingly the same were referred to the Engineer Member who, by his order dated 15th May, 1985 appointed the respondent No.2 as an arbitrator. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 24.5.1985 and received evidence on record. Upon perusal of the statement, counter-statement and other documents, the arbitrator made and published his award on 23rd February, 1987. The aforesaid award passed by the arbitrator was filed in this court as against which objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Relaxo Rubber Limited and anr. Vs. Aman Cable Industries and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT397
M.K. Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff and registered as I.A.No. 11401/1997 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a temporary injunction against the defendants from infringing or reproducing copies of the artistic words in respect of which the plaintiffs are the owners and also for restraining the defendants from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in goods under the trade mark 'RELAXO' or any other trade mark which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark.2. The plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of footwears. The plaintiff No. 1 is manufacturing its products and plaintiff No. 2 is marketing, selling and making publicity of footwears manufactured by plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 adopted the trade mark 'RELAXO' in relation to their various kinds of footwears. According to the plaintiffs RELAXO is n...
Tag this Judgment!