Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 9 of about 161 results (0.047 seconds)Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT59; 1998(45)DRJ444
J.B. Goel, J.1. On inviting tenders, the work of 'construction of Power Tunnel Upstream Package at Chamera H.E.' project was awarded by the respondent (for short 'NHPC') to the petitioner and Contract No. NH/Contracts/CC/CH-4/ Agreement dated 1.10.1985 was entered into between the parties. The work was completed on 31.1.1994 in the extended period. The case of the petitioner is that after completion of the work, final bill dated 19.4.1994 as provided under Clause 48 of the Agreement claiming a sum of Rs. 35,49,86,215.59 was submitted.2. Several letters were sent for making the payment but the payment has not been made. It is alleged that the agreement between the parties contains arbitration agreement in clause No. 55 and the disputes/differences having arisen which are covered by this clause, the same can be resolved through arbitration. Notice dated 7.5.1996 was invoking arbitration clause and reminder dated 14.8.1996 were sent but were not replied. The petitioner also claims entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C Ex. Vs. U.G. Sugar Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT186TriDel
1. In this appeal from the revenue, the eligibility of the following items for benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q, is questioned : The main thrust of the revenue, as amplified by Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld.DR, is that the scope of the subject rule before its amendment by virtue of Notification 14/96-CE. (N.T.), dated 23-7-1996, was so restricted as not to allow the benefit to these components. I have heard Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. DR for the Revenue and Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate for the respondents.2. In the subject rule before the issue of the cited notification, the component spare parts and accessories of the eligible machines were specifically made eligible. There is no doubt that the transmission of shaft of gear box is an integral part of the gear box without which the motive power cannot be transmitted. The same would be true of turbine parts. Therefore, as far as the admissibility of these goods is concerned, the cited notification did not make any significant change.In othe...
Tag this Judgment!Garlick Engineering Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT26TriDel
1. Appellant engaged in the manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of Electric Overhead Travelling Cranes (EOT Cranes), was following the procedure in Notification No. 120/75 and paying duty on the price collected under various invoices issued to buyers. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 1-4-1984 to 30-9-1985. Show cause notice dated 3-3-1988 was issued alleging that during the period in question, besides the price collected under the invoices, appellant had collected various amounts by way of charges for design, engineering, transportation and commissioning under separate debit notes which were suppressed from the scrutiny of the Department, that these charges should have been shown in the invoices and would be part of the assessable value and duty should have been paid thereon and proposing demand of differential duty on that basis invoking larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Though the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Ceramic Decorators Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT257TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-8-1994 passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Appellant made import of "Screen Stretcher" and claimed classification of the goods u/s.h. No. 8442.30 of the Customs Tariff and also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The Revenue assessed the goods u/h No. 84.79 of the Customs Tariff. Appellant paid duty and after clearance of goods, appellant filed refund claim. The refund claim was rejected. The Collector, Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the 'screen stretcher' is an apparatus designed only for stretching the fabric for screen making and therefore, the said equipment would not be classifiable as machinery for preparing or making the printing blocks plates, under Customs Tariff Heading 8442 but is correctly classifiable under residuary Heading 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff.3. Heard Shri R. Pal Singh, Constt. for the appellant and Shri R.S.Sangia, JDR fo...
Tag this Judgment!Banaskantha Distt. Co-op. Milk Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT714TriDel
1. The present appeal relates to classification of the product "Amulya Instant Milk Mix" manufactured by the appellants. The dispute is whether the product covered by subheading No. 0401.13 as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading No. 0401.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as contended by the appellants. There is no dispute that the product has been tested chemically and found to be partly skimmed milk powder. The contention of the Revenue is that the partly skimmed milk powder is also covered as skimmed milk powder under subheading No.0401.13. However, we find that this was the subject matter in the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Food Specialities Limited 1991 (51) E.L.T. 310 (P & H) in which it was held that partially skimmed milk powder and skimmed milk powder are different products inasmuch as, the expression "skimmed milk powder" means completely skimmed milk powder. The decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Flex Engineering Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT387TriDel
1. Both the appeals involved a common question of law hence they are being taken up together for final disposal.2. The appellants filed these appeals against two different orders-in-ap-peals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of packing machine of various types and were availing facility of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of packing machine. The appellants filed a declaration and availed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of laminated plastic film and paper poly. The benefit of Modvat credit in respect of plastic film and paper poly was denied on the ground that this was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product.4. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that plastic laminated film and paper poly are used for testing the packing machine which are not entered in the RG 1 stage. He submitted that plastic laminated film an...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar JaIn Vs. State Through Cbi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)1; 75(1998)DLT141
A.K. Srivastava, J.1. The Revisionist, Rakesh Kumar Jain is facing prosecution for contravention of the provisions of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of Official Secrets Act, 1923 in Criminal Case No. 317/94, Union of India through Deputy Superintendent of Police , C.B.I., Special Police Establishment v. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Joint Managing Director of M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited. He moved an application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the code) before the trial court for his discharge from the case on two grounds, namely that the order of his prosecution had not been passed by a proper authority and that cognizance could not have been taken as the complaint was barred by limitation. By the impugned order dated 17.3.1995 passed by Shri A.K. Garg, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the aforesaid application has been dismissed. Hence this criminal revision.2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the respondent. It was urged on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Verma (Retd) Major Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi53; [1999]97CompCas66(Delhi); ILR1998Delhi582
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The Writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a direction that he should be treated as a Non-Resident Indian ( NRI ) for a limited purpose of holding assets in U.K. of his late mother having been dismissed by learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The appellant is a citizen of India. His mother was a permanent resident of U.K. She had acquired some assets including shares in British Companies. She died in U.K. on 13th May,1995. The appellant had gone to London to look-after his mother when she was ailing. The brother of the appellant has also died and the appellant is the sole inheritor of the assets left behind by his mother. The appellant had stayed in U.K. for about seven and half months before returning to India. For some period the appellant was granted extension of time to hold assets abroad. The appellant has, however, not been granted permission by RBI to permanently continue to maintain and hold the assets left behind by his mother...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)46; 73(1998)DLT108; 1999(49)DRJ158
Arun Kumar J.1. This appeal and the batch of connected appeals pertain to Village Mehrauli which is located towards the south of the Capital City of New Delhi. We have heard all the appeals together since they pertain to land in the same village. The only point of distinction between the different batches is the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Various appeals pertain to notifications under Section 4 of the Act starting with the notification dated 13th November, 1959 which is subject matter of this appeal, followed by similar notifications under Section 4 dated 24th October, 1961, 23rd January, 1965, 8th September, 1971, 15th September, 1971 and 21st November, 1978. Broadly the market value of the land has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Collectors and the Additional District Judges in references under Section 18 of the Act as follows:S.No. AWARD NO. DATE OF NOTIFICATION COMPENSATION u/Sec.4 u/Sec.6 L.A.C. AWA...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Shroff Vs. State of Haryana
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi404a; 73(1998)DLT307
K.S.Gupta, J.1. One of the issue framed on February 2, 1994 was to the following effect: Whether the Court has no territorial jurisdiction? Plaintiff was awarded the work of printing of lottery tickets for the period April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986 and April 1,1986 to March 31, 1987 by the defendants. The amount of Rs. 24,53,445/61 P. for recovery whereof suit has been filed represents the balance payment allegedly due to the plaintiffs from the defendants for execution of the said work and the interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount. Para 25 of the plaint which is relevant reads thus: ' That the whole cause of action arose in Delhi, where order printing had been received by the plaintiffs, where printing was undertaken and carried out, printing press of the plaintiffs is located at Milmil Tahirpur, Shahdara, Delhi. The delivery of the printed lottery tickets was also given at Delhi, part payments were made by the defendants to the plaintiffs at Delhi. Hence, this Hon'ble Co...
Tag this Judgment!