Delhi Court December 1998 Judgments

Deepak Sawhney Vs. Technology Parks Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Deepak Sawhney, complainant, booked plot No. 110 in Block A in the residential portion of Park City Complex near Surajpur (UP) which was to be developed by Technology Parks Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opposite party.,The booking was done @ Rs. 330/- per sq. yard. According to the payment plan 40% was to be deposited as earnest money with the application and the balance paid in 36 equal instalments. The plots were to be developed and handed over to the agreement purchasers within 3 years ending 16.1.1992. The complainant deposited Rs. 39,468/- as earnest money and entered into an agreement dated 16.1.1989 with the opposite party. Various instalments were paid from time to time and the total payment made up to the date of filing the complaint was Rs. 91,494/- out of the total cost of Rs. 98,670/- leaving a balance of merely Rs. 7,174/-. The opposite party, however, failed to take any steps to develop the land. Various dates were fixed for complet...

Bakul Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC485

1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda confirming a duty demand of Rs. 17.13.096.30 p.on Alpha Napthyl Acetic Acid (ANAA) manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein during the period from 1.6.83 to 30.1.88 on the ground that the product though classifiable under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff upto 28.2.86, was not eligible for the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of SI. No. 18 of Notification 234/82-CE dated 1.4.82 as the product was a plant growth regulator and not a pesticide or insecticide, and on the ground that, after 1.3.86, the product was classifiable as plant growth regulator under sub-heading 3808.90 attracting duty at the appropriate rate and not under sub-heading 3808.10 attracting nil rate of duty as claimed by the appellants. The Adjudiciating authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs upon the appellants for contravention of the relevant Rules.2. The brief facts of the...

Yash Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1032TriDel

1. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 175/86 has been denied to the appellants herein on the ground that they were using the brand name "Yash" belonging to Yash Pharma Lab. P. Ltd., who was not availing the benefit of Notification 175/86, on two P or P medicines manufactured by them viz. "Lamolate Linctus" and "Octamine".2. The submission of the appellant represented by Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Advocate is that the monogram Yash belongs to them and is also used by M/s. Yash Pharma Lab. P. Ltd. and the monogram comes from the name of Shri Yashodhan N. Shah who was a Director in M/s. Yash Pharma Lab. P. Ltd. as well as a Director in Yash Pharma Chem. Bombay P. Ltd. which was a partner in the appellant partnership and that, therefore, the provisions of Notification 223/87 according to which the SSIL benefit is not available to an assessee who manufactures goods bearing brand name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under Notification 175/86, ...

Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT317TriDel

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of yarn out of viscose fibre, synthetic fibre, cotton, etc. and blends thereof. The yarn is cleared either for home consumption or for export. Inputs required for yarn cleared for home consumption are purchased after payment of duty, while the input required for yarn to be exported viz.fibre, is purchased without payment of duty under Rule 191B or 191BB, or after payment of duty in which case the appellant claims duty draw back/replenishment. Waste is generated at different stages while manufacturing or spinning of yarn and the waste arising at the mixing stage to simplex stage is known as soft waste, while waste arising after Ring Frame to reeling stage is known a hard waste. Hard waste of synthetic yarn/blended yarn other than acrylic or mod-acrylic is classifiable under GET sub-heading 5503.39 chargeable to Nil rate of duty and is not the subject matter of the appeal which relates to classification of soft waste which arise fr...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Florite Engg. Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT310TriDel

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the classification of oil seals and shaft sleeves manufactured by the respondents herein, who are manufacturers of parts of power driven pumps, under CET sub-heading 8413.00 - according to the Department oil seals merit classification under CET sub-heading 8309.00 and shaft sleeves under subheading 8483.00.2. We have heard Shri Nunthuk, learned DR and perused the records. Oil seals are made of rubber and parts of power driven pumps. Chapter 83 covers Misc. articles of base metals and hence oil seals of rubber cannot be classified under Chapter 83 and have rightly been held to fall under Heading 8413.00 as parts of pumps for liquids. As for Shaft sleeves Heading 84.83 covers transmission shaft including cam shaft and crank shaft. Shaft sleeve in question is a sheet metal sleeve provided to prevent the wear and tear of shaft, is a part of power driven pump and hence the approval of shaft sleeve under Heading 8413.00 by the lower authorities is correct and ...

Khoday Engg. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC407Tri(Delhi)

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Khoday Engg. Ltd. the issue involved is whether an order issued under Section 5A(2) of the Central Excise Act is applicable to the goods manufactured and cleared before issue of the order.2. Shri Prasanth Kumar, Id. Counsel submitted that they had entered into a contract with Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board for providing, laying and commissioning of Reservoir. For this purpose they had fabricated pipes from the raw materials supplied by M/s. BWSSB. The Central Government vide Order No. 6/91, dated 22-2-1991 issued under Section 5A(2) of Central Excise Act exempted all excisable goods falling under Chapter 68 or 73 fabricated at the fabrication shop of M/s. Khoday Engineering Works which are required by and supplied to Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board in connection with the execution of the Cauvery Water Supply Scheme from the whole of duty of excise. He submitted that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty holding that the ...

Gulshan Sugar and Chemicals Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC472

1. The correct classification of Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (coated and uncoated) produced by the appellants is the issue to be decided in this case--the appellants seek classification under sub-heading 2505.90 with benefit of nil rate of duty under Notification No. 4/94-CE dated 1.3.94 while the Revenue has classified uncoated variety under sub-heading 2836.90 and coated variety under sub-heading 3823.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. 1985. The relevant classification lists are SI. No. 22 and 23/CL/IM/93-94 effective from 1st March. 1994.2. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri J.M. Sharma. learned DR, The appellants are manufacturers of different grades of coated and uncoated Precipitated Calcium Carbonate which are sold by them to various manufacturers of tooth-paste, tooth-powder, cosmetics etc. The process adopted by the appellants is as under: The basic raw material is limestone which is produced from quarries. First l...

Arjun Ahuja Vs. S.C. Mehta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ89

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 6th October, 1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The petition for eviction of the respondent was allowed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the petitioner was granted six months time to vacate the tenanted premises.2. The petitioner became a tenant of the respondent on 12th April, 1979 and the premises were let out under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The property comprises of ground floor flat (D.D.A.) No.187, Pocket No. 14, Block-C-4C, Janak Puri, New Delhi consisting of one drawing room, two bed rooms, kitchen, one bathroom and lavatory with open space. Admittedly the premises were let out for residential purposes and the petition was filed as the respondent required the same bonafide for himself and for other family members dependent upon him. The family of the petitioner consists of his wife, son, two daughters a...

M.Z. Khan Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)682; AIR1999Delhi164; [2001]107CompCas141(Delhi); 77(1999)DLT706; 1999(48)DRJ189

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is writ petition whereby Shri M.Z. Khan, who is a shareholder of the third respondent-Raasi Cement Limited challenges the order of the Central Government dated October 6, 1998 passed in appeal under section 20 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short 'the SEBI Act') against the order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'the SEBI') to the extent it declined the petitioner's prayer for stay of the public offer of the fourth respondent- Dr. B.V. Raju acting in concert with respondents 5 to 13, to the shareholders of Sri Vishnu Cement Limited (for short 'SVCL'), whose names appeared in the register of members as on the close of the business hours of August 5, 1998 offering to acquire up to 47,44,000 equity shares of SVCL at a price of Rs. 100/- per share, fully paid up, payable in cash, representing up to 20% of the issued capital of SVCL, from the shareholdrs. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jet Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT32TriDel

1. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order held that "Respondents herein have claimed the benefit of Notification 178/88 on the ground that the goods are manufactured out of the scrap purchased from the open market on which the duty liability has been discharged. The Department has not produced any evidence to show that the goods purchased are clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. In the absence of any such evidence, the plea of the appellants has no basis and the appeal merits rejection. The appeal is accordingly rejected".2. Being aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has filed the captioned appeal. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are the manufacturers of copper plates, sheets, circles etc.They filed classification list claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 178/88 dated 13-5-1988 as amended and Notification No.1172/84 (sic), dated 1-4-1988 (sic). The respondents also claimed that the products are manufactured out of scra...