Delhi Court May 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.
Bharat Lal and anr. Vs. Haryana Chit Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT766
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. By this order I propose to deal with this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the arbitration agreement and referring the disputes for arbitration; and an is No. 6785/94 under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking an injunction against defendant No. 2 restraining the Registrar of Chit Funds from making any payment to defendant No. 1; and is No. 6784/94 seeking direction to that defendants to allow inspection of record to the plaintiffs or their authorised representatives.2. The two plaintiffs became members of Haryana Chits Pvt. Limited and subscribed various chits commencing from 23rd August, 1986. Plaintiff No. 1 has subscribed following chits:SeriesNo. Number of chits Date Subscriptionpaid HCF-6 Two 5.1.88 75,000/-each HCF-8 & 9 Two 11.6.88 2,00,000/-each HCF-10 Two 28.9.88 1,00,000/-each HCF-11 and12 Two 20.10.89 1,50,000/-each HCF-13 Two 7.2.89 1,50,000/-each ...
Ashok Chaudhary Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Inderjit Sandhu and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)917; 1998(47)DRJ575
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal, directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.7.1997 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, pertains to a contest between the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises after termination of the licence, on the one hand and the appellant-defendant No.2 on the other wanting to continue as a tenant without being evicted there from.2. According to the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, defendant No.1 was allowed to occupy the barsati floor of the property bearing No. F-9, South Extension, 11 Ring Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) as a licensee as he was friend of her son, who is presently living abroad. Defendant No.2, being a friend of the defendant No.1, was a frequent visitor to her house. In the month of May, 1991, the defendant No.2 came to reside with the defendant No.1 for a week after obtaining oral permission from the plaintiff. In the meantime the defenda...
Hari Impex Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT503TriDel
1. These are four inter-connected appeals arising from the same impugned order, namely, order-in-original dated 18-8-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs-II, Bombay. By the said order a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs was imposed on M/s. Hari Impex, the main appellants before us and Rs. 5 lakhs each on M/s. J.P. Singh and K.P. Singh, Partners in M/s.Hari Impex. The other appellant, Shri V.S. Raghvan, has also been imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. The case of the Department against the present appellants is that they had attempted to export Printed Circuit Boards (P.C. Boards) by showing grossly over valued price. The F.O.B. value shown in the 16 shipping bills was Rs. 440-445/- per PCB whereas market inquiry revealed that the value of PCB was only Rs. 40/-. Since common issues were involved and the appeals arise from the same impugned order all the four appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. Shri Harbans Singh, Id. Counsel, appeared for Shri Hari I...
Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT79TriDel
1. The appellant filed the appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 9-8-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. In the impugned order the Collector held that the New Crepaco Continuous Ingredient Feeder Model No. S 410 is classifiable under heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff.2 Heard Shri T.P.S. Kang, Advocate and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR. The appellant made an import of New Crepaco Continuous Ingredient Feeder Model S 410. The appellant claimed classification of this feeder under Heading No. 84.15 of the Customs Tariff as refrigerator and refrigerating equipment. The goods were assessed under Heading 84.15 of the Customs Tariff. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the appellant stating therein that the goods were classifiable under Heading 84.59(1) as machine and mechanical appliances having individual functions not elsewhere specified. After adjudication the adjudicating authority held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 84.59(1) of the Custom...
Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT270TriDel
1. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 including cold rolled strips; of non-alloy steel falling under headings 7209.30 and 7211.51.For the manufacture of the above items, the appellants purchase duty paid hot rolled strips, skelp and coils falling under Chapter 72. The appellants filed a Modvat declaration under Rule 57G wherein they declared HR coils as an input and indicated Heading Nos. 7208.21, 7211.49, 7211.42 and 7208.29. They also declared the strips as an input and indicated Heading Nos. 7211.51,7211.59 and 7211.52.2. The appellants purchased duty paid HR coils/strips from M/s. Atma Steel, Ghaziabad under the cover of Gate Passes. These gate passes mentioned the input as HR coil/strip and indicated the Heading as 7208.39. The appellants took Modvat credit on these inputs vide entries in the RG 23A Part II No. 97. In the reply to the S.C.N. the appellants urged, inter alia, that the demand of duty was time barr...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Amrit Petrochemical Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT438TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 10-10-1991.2. The notice sent to the respondents has been returned undelivered with the remarks 'not known'. The respondents have filed a memorandum of cross objection. We have, therefore, perused the records and heard learned DR.3. Learned DR stated that Chapter 27 covers mineral fuels mineral oils etc. and Chapter 38 applies to miscellaneous chemical products. The classification preferred by the department was under Chapter S.H. No.2710.99 as mineral oils whereas the assessees preferred Chapter S.H.No. 3811.00. The product is marketed in the name and style of an oil saver of engine. Later on at the appellate stage, this has also been argued that its functions is to improve the viscosity. Viscosity improves and anti-knock preparations are covered by Chapter S.H. No.3811.00 but then these should be essentially chemical products as Chapter 38 covers chemical products. T...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mohan Crystal Glass Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT482TriDel
1. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of glass articles and in the process of the manufacture of the same has been using the material in question namely Kleenmold 170 which is stated to be a glass mould lubricant necessary for ensuring that the glass articles formed in the mould is easily removed without any scratches or breakage. The Assistant Commissioner held that Modvat credit on Kleenmold compound is not admissible for which purpose he relied upon a trade notice dated 7-4-1992 issued by the Bombay Central Excise Commissionerate-I wherein it had been clarified that since mould itself is not an input and is not eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A, the compound used to clean it cannot be treated as input and hence not eligible for Modvat credit under the said rule. This order having been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing of the appeal filed by the present respondent, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut has filed the present appeal.2. Shri A.M...
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT715TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. involving a common question about classification of blended yarn whether it should be under sub-heading 5506.21 as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading 5506.29 as classified by the Department.2. Shri Apurva Bhattacharya, ld. Advocate, submitted that immediately after the search conducted by the Central Excise Officers, the sample of their product was tested in the appellants' lab. only and they were found to be satisfied the conditions specified in Heading 5506.21 that is the proportion of the polyester staple fibre was more than 40% by weight of the total fibre content. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner who in his test report also reported that polyester fibre content was more than 40% by weight. However, the Chemical Examiner subsequently under letter dated 4-7-1988 informed the Department that the contents of polyester reported in the impugned matter was on dry basis as per the calculation met...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lohia Brass (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT389TriDel
1. The appeal by the department is directed against order-in-ap-peal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad by which he had, inter alia, held the appellant before him (respondent in the present proceedings) to be eligible for the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of Light Diesel Oil (LDO) used by the respondent in relation to the manufacture of the final product, namely, brass sheets and circuits. In doing so, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner denying the Modvat credit for the subject material. In coming to the said conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) followed a Tribunal decision in Collector of Central Excise, Surat v. Batliboi & Co. 1997 (89) E.L.T. 696.2. In the appeal, it is contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct as the subject input, namely LDO is not covered as an input under Rule 57A. A reference have been made to No...
Raipur Bright Steel and Wire Weld Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT674TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Raipur, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 43,909/- on 69.695 MT of bars removed under GP1 Nos. 511 to 517 all dated 1-10-1990, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,37,846.62 and Rs. 6,80,207.47 on 218.720 MT of CTD bars/channels/flats and angles and 1504.765 MT of CTD bars/rounds/angles and 96.240 MT of M.S. Flats above 5 mm. cleared by the appellants without issue of Gate Passes and without payment of duty, confiscating M.S. Channels, angles and flats below 5 mm thickness, seized on 3-10-1990, for the reason that these items were found in excess of the recorded balance in RG 1 Register, with the option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- along with appropriate duty. The adjudicating authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. We have heard Shri Bhargav Desai, ld. Advocate and Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, ld. DR Our findings are recorded below : 2.1 Duty Demand of Rs. 43,909 : On 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »