Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

Rishi Pal Gupta Vs. S.J. Knitting and Finishing Mills Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]93CompCas849(Delhi); 1998(47)DRJ352

Usha Mehra, J. 1. In this case the citation was issued in the 'Statesman' (English edition) as well as in 'Vir Arjuna' (Hindi edition) And 'Delhi Gazeted' in terms of the order dated 10th April, 1997, admitting the company petition for hearing and justifying the winding up of the respondent company. Subsequent thereto review application was filed by the respondent company for setting aside the appointment of the O.L. and of the winding up order of the respondent company. The said application was dismissed vide order dated May, 16th, 1998. The company appeal was also dismissed. Now this application has been filed by the petitioner and the respondent company indicating that the respondent company wants to settle the matter with the petitioner. Notice was issued to the O.L. who has filed the reply.2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, respondent company as well as Mr. Sanjay Shouri, Asst. Official Liquidator. The main contention of the O.L. is that the parties could not have ent...

Emco General Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ97

M.K. Sharma, J. 1. In response to the invitation of tender floated by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner submitted his tender for supply of Plaything Pipes and the said tender of the petitioner was accepted and the parties entered into a contract dated 17.5.1978. However, disputes and differences in respect of and in relation to the aforesaid contract arose between the parties and, thereforee, in terms of the arbitration agreement included therein, the entire disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2.2. The respondent No. 2 entered into the reference and upon hearing the parties made and published his award on 15.10.1985. The said award of the arbitrator has been filed in this Court in pursuance of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act.3. After receipt of the aforesaid award in this Court, the respondent No. 1 has filed an objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on which I have heard the learned coun...

Dr. K.E. Moses Vs. Mahak Cable Network

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant obtained cable connection from the opposite partys Cable T.V. Network. According to the complainant, in January, 1996, the said cable remained disconnected for four days in a row and again in December, 1996 the cable gave away and was not set-right for days together inspite of the matter having been reported to the opposite party. Lastly, according to the complainant, the charges made by the opposite party were enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- in January, 1997 without any justification. 2. The opposite party failed to appear before the District Forum and contest the claim. The District Forum held that the question of charges for cable service were not regulated by law and raising of charges could not, therefore, be gone into in the present proceedings. With regard to the other averments of the complainant, it was observed that the complainant must have normally lodged a complaint in writing with the cable ope...

Polar Appliances Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT249TriDel

1. Ld. Advocate Shri M. Chandershekharan prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 58,65,851/- demanded as duty and he also prays for similar treatment of personal penalty of an equivalent amount under Rule 114A of the Customs Act on the first appellant M/s. Polar Appliances Ltd. He also prays for stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the second appellant Shri Deepak Jain, General Manager of the first appellant.2. The short point raised by the ld. Advocate in support of the aforesaid applicants is that the benefit of Notification No. 50/95-Cus.has been illegally and wrongly denied by the adjudicating authority to the various components which have been imported by the Applicant No. 1.He submits that while the adjudicating authority has relied on Tribunal's judgment in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. reported in 1995 (16) RLT 646 for the purpose of treating the components imported by the applicant as complete home appliance. He has not given the benefit ...

Perfect Engg. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT248TriDel

1. The appellant herein have imported electroplated diamond grinding Disc. The question involved is regarding their classification, whether under Chapter 82 or under Chapter 68.2. In ruling out the classification under Chapter 82, the following are the findings of the lower authority :- As apparent from Note l(d) above, Chapter 82 only covers articles with abrasive materials on a support of base metal, which retain their identity and function after the application of the abrasive. It is apparent that the discs imported in the instant case are excluded from Chapter 82 since the grooves in the said discs are not of the kind which have any identity and function after application of the abrasive. The grooves referred to in the aforesaid Chapter note are clearly not the grooves of the Electroplated Diamond Grinding Discs where the grooves are merely for impregnation of the diamonds and other precious stones working as the abrasive substance. The discs in question are apparently of abrasive...

Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT186TriDel

1. The appeal was posted for admission. After hearing both sides, the appeal was taken up for final hearing.2. The assessees received capital goods during July, 1994 on which credit was taken during September-November, 1994. The invoices were issued by dealers, who were not registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the time of issue of invoices, but who subsequently got themselves registered before December, 1994. A show cause notice was issued on the ground that Notification 64/94-C.E.(N.T.) did not cover traders dealing in capital goods. The assessees voluntarily reversed the amount of credit taken. The show cause notice was, therefore, dropped. Thereafter, the assessees filed a refund claim on the ground that the credit was allowable and that the refund claim was not barred by limitation since the credit was reversed under protest. Another show cause notice was issued where the allegation was the same, namely, that the coverage of Notification No. 64/94 did not...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.B. Mangharam Foods Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC521Tri(Delhi)

The short point involved in this appeal is whether the cost of capsule used for closing the metal container in which the biscuits are packed is to be excluded from the value of excisable goods under the provisions of Notification 34/82.2. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR submitted that under Notification 34/82 duty was not chargeable in respect of the value representing cost of metal containers in which the excisable goods were packed at the time of their removal from the factory; that the biscuits manufactured by the respondents were packed in metal containers and the capsule was only an accessory and therefore the cost of such accessory was not covered by the said notification.3. Shri S.S. Mehra, Consultant submitted that the use of capsule was very necessary for the purpose of packing biscuits otherwise biscuits would get damaged during transit.4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and we find that Notification 34/82 exempts payment of duty on that part of the value which repr...

Collector of Customs Vs. Voltas Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT413TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the respondents. However the question involved being in very short compass, we heard the ld. SDR in the absence of the respondents. The respondents herein imported one centreless super finishing machine model - SM 400.1 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 154/86-Cus. under S.No. 1(49). The relevant entry in the notification reads as under: "superfinishing machines capable of achieving 0.05 Ra to 0.1 Ra surface finish other than the attachment" 3. Since the machine was capable to achieve 0.03 Ra, the benefit of this notification was denied on the ground that the machine was not capable to achieve 0.05 Ra to 0.1 Ra.4. The adjudicating authority namely the Collector of Customs, Bombay said that when the machine was achieving a better finish i.e. to the extent of 0.03 Ra, it was certainly capable of achieving the finish of the range 0.05 to 0.1 Ra. In this behalf the respondents also produced the certificate from the supplier which was not accepted by th...

H. and R. Johnsons (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT146TriDel

1. Question involved in the present matter is whether the product compendiously described as refractory containers comprising (1) Pillars (2) Bases (3) Setting and (4) Bats are entitled for benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. These refractories containers are utilised for the purpose of setting the raw tiles arranged in a particular manner and for making them fit for use in a trolley or klin car. These refractory containers are to be placed under a high degree of temperature in the furnace used for baking the tiles. There can be no dispute that these are inputs for the purpose of manufacture of tiles.The question is whether these inputs fall under the excluded category of the inputs as mentioned in the Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986. The lower authority has held that refractory containers would be covered by the excluded category of the inputs namely 'appliances and equipment'. Hence it has been held that the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. would not be avail...

S.K. Johar Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)465; 74(1998)DLT858

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the transfer order dated 22.08.1998 transferring the petitioner as Sr.Manager Engineering on promotion to a place called Arvi in the state of Maharashtra. The petitioner is now a Senior Manager Engineering. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the order of transfer is against the Policy of Transfer issued by the respondent on 03.01.1996. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the transfer policy an officer who had undergone three transfers shall not normally be transferred. If on promotion inspire of three transfers an officer shall not be transferred and if there is a vacancy in the promotion post in the place where he is serving at the time of promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vipin Sanghi submitted the fact that the petitioner has undergone three transfers is not disputed. While transferring the petitioner on promotion as Senior Manage...