Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments

Power Engineers (Jaipur) Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT590TriDel

1. In this case by the adjudication Order No. 95/90 dated 4-10-1990, the appellants were held to be not eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 160/86-C. E. for parts of Transformers, and by adjudication Order No. 101 /90, a demand of Rs. 44,515.87 was confirmed as a result of the denial of the benefit of the notification. The Collector (Appeals) disposed of both the appeals by a common order. The appellants have preferred only one appeal against both orders-in-original which were the subject matter of the appellate order. Notice for today's hearing was issued directing them to file a supplementary appeal along with the application for condonation of delay; however, when the matter was called, it was brought to our notice that the hearing notice has been returned undelivered with he postal remark "left without address and return to senders". We, therefore, heard the learned DR and disposed of the matter. We, however, clarify that our order is ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rubi Coach Builders Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT607TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 1-3-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. These matters relate to the valuation of the ambulance built on duty paid chassis. Under Notification No.214/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 the motor vehicle manufactured from the duty paid chassis were exempted from payment of duty of the excise as was equivalent to the duty leviable with reference to that part of the value which represented the value of such chassis on which the body of the motor vehicle was made. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay observed that the assessee was required to declare the value as per Section 4 for whole of the built vehicle including the value of the chassis and that only the duty on the chassis was thereafter to be deducted from the duty otherwise leviable. On the complete ambulance, the Collector of Central Excise set aside the order and observed that the body builders were required to pa...

Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT610TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of synthetic yarn and cotton yarn falling under Tariff Item No. 18E (II) respectively of the schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They filed a refund claim on 4-8-1983 for refund of duty paid on 1530 Kgs. of 100% polyester yarn and 1530 Kgs. of polyester/Viscose/Acrylic yarn. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 1-10-1983 sanctioned refund of duty paid on 1530 Kgs. yarn falling under Tariff Item 18E (100% polyester yarn) and rejected the claim in respect to remaining quantity of yarn falling under Tariff Item 18B (II). The Collector (Appeals), before whom the appellants filed an appeal remanded the matter for decision in the light of the Tribunal's Order Nos. 28 & 29/84-D, dated 25-1-1984, holding that yarn having composition of polyester/Viscose/Acrylic would not be covered under Tariff Item 18 but under the residuary item No.68. Before the Assistant Collector, to whom the matter was remanded, the assessee took the plea that t...

A.S. Cycle Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT603TriDel

1. These two appeals are directed against the common Order No.12/CE/CHD-II /98/876, dated 5-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh demanding Central Excise duty over Rs. 13 lacs from M/s. A.S. Cycle Industries and imposing of penalty of Rs. 14 lacs and Rs. 7 lacs respectively on M/s. A.S. Cycle Industries and M/s. Freedom Sales. The dispute involved in these appeals is the eligibility of foot operated pumps manufactured by A.S.Cycle Industries to exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The impugned order has held that they were not eligible as they were using brand name 'Freedom' of their trading concern M/s. Freedom Sales on the said foot operated pumps, as the exemption was not available to the goods on which the brand name of another person who was not entitled to exemption was affixed on the goods.2. Arguing for the applicants, learned counsel Shri V. Sridharan submitted that the finding of the Commissioner that M/s. Freedom Sales was not en...

Bani Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By the impugned order at Annexure A-I which is under challenge in this application the applicant was deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from 29.8.1996. The deemed suspension followed the arrest of the applicant in a criminal case registered against him under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1996 as per the FIR No. 71(A)/96/DLI dated 28.8.1996.2. Applicant contests the impugned order on the ground that this was issued without application of mind and without following the procedure and is, therefore, illegal, and the respondents had neither reviewed nor revoked the suspension as required under the rules. The respondents have continued to place him under suspension without a proper review not only of the subsistence allowance but of his suspension itself also which is required under the provisions of the rules. It is stated that the applicant has made representations but respondents have not passed any order on the representation. They have also r...

Kumar Apparels Accessories Company Private Limited Vs. Shri Prem Ranja ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ136

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated September 20, 1997 passed by Mrs.Anu Malhotra, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The eviction petition of the respondent was allowed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the petitioner was granted time to vacate the premises for a period of six months. The premises were let out to the petitioner company by virtue of lease-deed executed on June 28, 1985. The elevant portion of the lease-deed would indicate that the premises were let out for residential purposes for the residence of Shri Vivek Kumar. The relevant clause which starts from page 1 reads as follows: 'That in consideration of the rent hereinafter reserve and the covenants on the parts of the lessee hereinafter contained the Lesser hereby agrees to let to the lessee for residential purposes of Shri Vivek Kumar the premises described above (hereinafter called the premises).' Similarly, it is stated in paragraph 16 as follows:...

Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT84

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This common order shall govern the disposal of 73 civil writ petitions, the numbers whereof are referred to in the succeeding paragraph. There are three groups of writ petitions. 2. M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. are the petitioners in CWP Nos. 812/98, 813/98, 814/98, 815/98, 1166/98, 2443/97, 2444/97, 2446/97, 2447/97, 2448/97, 2449/97, 2450/97, 2451/97, 2452/97, 2453/97, 2454/97, 2455/97, 2456/97, 2457/97, 2458/97, 2459/97, 2437/97, 2438/97, 3538/97, 3539/97, 3540/97, 3541/97, 3542/97, 3543/97, 3545/97, 3546/97, 3547/97, 3548/97, 3549/97, 3544/97, 2441/97, 2442/97, 2445/97, 1735/97. 2.1. M/s DLF Universal Ltd. are the petitioners in CWP Nos. 917/98, 1022/98, 3107/98, 3108/98, 3259/98, 3278/98, 3403/98, 3404/98, 3440/98, 3512/98, 3513/98, 3514/98, 3527/98, 3725/98 3743/98, 3983/98, 4133/98, 4134/98, 4138/98, 4147/98, 4160/98, 4195/98, 4385/98, 4658/98, 4791/98, 4792/98, 991/98, 1776/98, 2190/98, 2191/98, 2192/98, 2436/98, 4611/97, 4612/97. 2.2. Rajdhani Est...

K.K. Loomba and Mrs. Uma Loomba Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]241ITR152(Delhi)

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. Mrs. Uma Loomba, the petitioner, in CWP No. 3710 of 1997 is the wife of Dr. K. K. Loomba, the petitioner, in CWP No. 2983 of 1997. These writ petitions have been filed by them seeking quashing of an order, under Section 124(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, and also seeking quashing of the notices under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation Circle 11(1)) New Delhi, for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The relevant facts in both the petitions are common and are briefly stated hereinafter.2. Dr. K. K. Loomba is an individual, a doctor by profession. He was deriving income from Loomba Clinical Laboratories, Amritsar, as a sole proprietor since 1974 and was also a partner in New Bhandari Hospital, Amritsar, up to May 1984. With effect from May, 1984, he retired from the partnership and started his independent practice as doctor at Amritsar. He claims to have file...

K.K. Loomba Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Del)392

C. K. Mahajan, J.Mrs. Uma Loomba, the petitioner, in CWP No. 3710 of 1997 is the wife of Dr. K.K. Loomba, the petitioner, in CWP No. 2983 of 1997. These writ petitions have been filed by them seeking quashing of an order under section 124(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the CIT, Delhi-VII, and also seeking quashing of the notices under section 148 of the Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Investigation Circle. 11(1), New Delhi, for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The relevant facts in' both the petitioners are common and are briefly stated hereinafter.2. Dr. K.K. Loomba is an individual, a doctor by profession. He was deriving income from Loomba Clinical Laboratories, Amritsar, as. a sole proprietor since 1974 and was also a partner in New Bhandari Hospital, Amritsar, up to May 1984. With effect from May, 1984, he retired from the partnership and started his independent practice as doctor at Amritsar. He claims to have filed returns for the assessment years 19...

Pesticides Mfrs. and Formulators Ascn. of India Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(115)ELT324(Del)

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in the present petition relates to the correct classification of 'Technical Grade insecticides, pesticides etc.'. The petitioner has laid challenge to the circular dated 28-10-1997 issued by C.B.E.C. classifying the Technical Grade insecticides and pesticides under chapters 28 and 29 applicable to Chemicals in general or under heading No. 38.23, depending upon whether they are separately defined elements or compounds or not.2. The petition has been filed in a representative capacity. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is an Association of various manufacturers of 'Technical Grade pesticides and insecticides' and formulations thereof.3. The respondent No. 2, the Central Board of Excise and Customs has been given powers to issue orders under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purpose of uniformity of classifications. All such orders are binding on all the subord...