Delhi Court February 1998 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ810
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in this appeal has primarily challenged the award given by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) on the ground of limited liability. Brief facts of the case are that on 21st March,1981 at about 5.30 p.m. deceased Dev Karan, aged 33 years was riding as pillion rider motor cycle being driven by one Tej Ram. They were going from Janakpuri to Ballabhgarh on Mehrauli-Badarpur Road, when a Truck bearing No.DLG-6544 driven by Jeet Singh came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction on wrong side and hit the motor-cycle. As a result of this accident both the driver as well as pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down. They were dragged by the truck for about 6-8 paces. They sustained serious injuries resulting in their death. Deceased Dev Karan as per claim petition was working as Junior Clerk in DESU and was getting a salary of Rs.1,050/- per month. In addition to his salary he was having annu...
Delton Cables Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT56TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Delton Cables Ltd. being aggrieved with a common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In her order-in-appeal, the adjudicating authority had dismissed two appeals on the ground that the appeals had been filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that after the receipt of the adjudication orders in which some of the refund amounts had been disallowed, they had requested the adjudicating authority to furnish information, details etc. on the basis of which the claims had been rejected. He further submitted that no information was forthcoming from the adjudicating authority and they wrote to the appellate authority informing of the same even before filing the appeal. He prayed that the delay be condoned and matter remanded for de novo consideration.3. In reply Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, stated that n...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Tata Tea Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT37TriDel
1. These appeals were filed by the Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 18-12-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The Collector of Central Excise vide impugned order held mat tea cess is not leviable on the tea waste.2. The Revenue filed the appeals on the ground that cess is leviable on tea waste cleared for manufacture of instant tea meant for export since it is not specifically exempted under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Cess on tea is leviable under the Tea Act, 1953 and the definition of tea includes tea waste also. The Revenue further contended that since no Notification under Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitting clearance of tea waste without payment of cess has been issued, therefore, the cess would be payable on tea waste even if such tea waste is cleared without payment of Central Excise Duty. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, appearing for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal.3. Shri Joseph Kodianthara, learned Cou...
Lakme Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC245
1. The common appellant is absent in spite of notice, but has set a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. AH, JDR and perused the papers.2. These appeals arise out of two refund claims filed by the common appellant in respect of two separate claims filed on the allegation that freight and forwarding charges had been included in the assessable value, though such charges were not includible and excess duty had been paid and the same should be refunded. The Assistant Collector gave partial relief but denied refund on the element of service charges, that is, expenses in connection with the typing, preparing zerox copies and sending telegrams, purchasing strapping machine, for packing and repacking and loading and unloading expenses at the depot. Collector (Appeals) having confirmed these orders, the present appeals have been filed.3. It appears that all the goods manufactured in the factory were being cleared to the depots and sales effected at the depots. As...
Collector of Customs Vs. Midas Rubber Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC172
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin passed on 26-5-1994. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1. The respondents imported a machine herein as 'Elastograph' under Bill of Entry No. 706, dated 17-3-1994 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 104/90-Cus., dated 20-3-1994 which gives a lower rate of duty to Rheometer. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Trivandrum examined the claim of the assessee and stated that the Elastograph is a machine for ascertaining the elasticity of rubber compound, whereas the Rheometer is used for measuring the degree of vulcanisation. Therefore, Assistant Commissioner held that Rheometer and Elastograph are two distinct and different instruments for measuring two different properties of the rubber compound and hence, the lower rate of duty prescribed for Rheometer cannot be granted to the 'Elastograph' under import. Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin set asi...
Kulbir Singh Rattan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)226; AIR1998Delhi230; 72(1998)DLT586
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed alleging that NDMC, respondent No.1 invited tenders for supply to stone grit and stone dust at NDMC hot mix plant. In response thereto the petitioner submitted its tender which was accepted after negotiations. Agreement bearing No. 8/MHMP/96-97 was executed between the parties. The contract is governed by the general conditions which provide for arbitration under Clause 14, of the aforesaid agreement in case of disputes between the parties. Supply of stone grit and stone dus was to be commenced from April 28, 1996 and completed within a period of six months i.e. by October 27, 1996. Contract was to be tune of Rs. 41,09,515/-. It is alleged that the petitioner made the supplies of the stone grit/stone dust of the total value of Rs. 4,25,000/- to respondent No.1 as per specifications uptil June 12, 1996. As respondent No. 1 failed to make the payment of the aforesaid amount, fu...
State Bank of India Vs. M/S Rajdhani Steels and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(45)DRJ162
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,06,953.44 with costs and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 17 1/2% per cent per annum against the respondents.2. Plaintiff Bank is a body corporate constituted by the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Bombay, and one of its Local Head Office at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi. It has its branches throughout India and one such branch is situated at Naraina which is under administrative control of Local Head Office at New Delhi.3. Shri D.C. Goyal is the Branch Manager and Principal Officer of the State Bank of India and has been Office to file and institute the suit and is conversant with the facts of this case. He is competent to sign and verify all types of pleadings, vakalatnamas, affidavits, execution and various other applications and to do all acts necessary for proper conduct of legal proceedings filed on behalf of the plaintiff-Ba...
Geeta Mohan Vs. Baldev Raj Hasija and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: 71(1998)DLT790
J.B. Goel, J. 1. The plaintiff has alleged that she is the owner of property No. 2287/1 situated at More Sarai Barafkhana, Koriapul, Delhi and had agreed to let out her share of the property - 4000 sq. feet in area to the defendant No. 1 by means of an agreement dated 1.6.1993 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500/-; for this a regular lease deed was to be executed and registered, but the defendant failed to do so and is in unauthorised possession as a trespasser. In the alternative, it is alleged that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 18.10.1996. The plaintiff in this suit has claimed the following reliefs against defendant No. 1:1. Decree for possession of the premises. 2. Decree for recovery of Rs. 1,62,000/- as damages for use and occupation. 2. In the plaint it is further alleged that the property was inspected by the officials of defendant No. 2 on 19.11.1997 and they are threatening to demolish and/ or seal the property in ...
Graphic Printpack Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT39TriDel
1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 89,577.38 paise and stay of the recovery proceedings.3. The dispute is in respect of classification of the product namely aluminium foils discs. Whether the item is classifiable under 76.07 as claimed by the assessee or under 83.09 as per department is an issue to be considered in this case. According to the party, the item is known in the trade parlance as aluminium foils only and not as a stopper and cap etc. and, accordingly, it is appropriately classifiable under 76.07 and in support of his contention, he also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Garware Nylon Ltd., reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.).4. On the other hand, Shri D.S. Negi countering the arguments drew our attention to the finding given by the Collector (Appeals) observing that since the thickness of the item in question exceeds 0.2 mm. it is not classifiable under 76.07...
Wox Collers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT363TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 28/89, dated 20-10-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of evaporative coolers classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.15 of the CET. They claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 65/83 dated 1-3-1983. This notification exempts the impugned goods among others up to 15 lakhs cleared on or before 1st of April in any Financial Year and exemption, however, is dependent on the assessee's filing a declaration with the Assistant Commissioner to the effect that aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods would not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs.3. The Additional Collector held that the aggregate value of clearances had exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs and they had not filed necessary declaration.4. Arguing for the appellants, learned Advocate submits that the notification during the Financial Year 1986-87 was rescinded on 23-4-1986. In other words, the benefit of this notific...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »