Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 7 of about 237 results (0.049 seconds)Usha International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT142TriDel
1. Short question before the Tribunal in this case is whether E-6000 Usha Passap 220V Knitting Machine is a Domestic Knitting Machine or an Industrial Knitting Machine. If it is of the later variety, the goods are allowed to be imported under O.G.L. On the other hand if it is of a domestic variety it requires licence for importation.2. Claim of the Revenue is that it is a domestic knitting machine.Revenue has based its case on the catalogue submitted by the appellants themselves which describes a goods as "worlds most advanced home knitting machine". The comparison has also been made of the aforesaid imported machine with some other Industrial knitting machine namely, Universal MC-720 Flat Bed Industrial knitting machine and it has been found that the range and capacity of the machine under import is lower than range and capacity of Universal MC-720.3. Claim of the appellants on the other hand is that it is an industrial knitting machine used for manufacture of hosiery items by a self...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. LupIn Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC564
1. The classification of the product 7 ADCA (7 Amino de-acetoxy cephalasporanic acid) manufactured by M/s. Lupin Laboratories P. Ltd. for further use in the manufacture of final product Cephalexin (an antibiotic falling under GET Sub-heading 2941.90 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985) arises for determination in these appeals, which are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The Revenue seeks classification under CET Sub-heading 2921.00 as Amine function compound While the assessees claim classification under CET Sub-heading 2941.90 as other anti-biotics.The respondents herein were manufacturing 7 ADCA since April 1987 without declaring the same and without filling any classification list for this item. They were clearing 7 ADCA to their sister concern viz.M/s. Armour Chemicals P. Ltd. for the manufacture of cephalexin on job work basis. The Department was of the view that the benefit of exemption under Notification 122/86-CE dated 1.3.86 was not available to 7 ADCA under ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Metaltone (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT722TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 8-5-1995 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The matter relates to the classification of the goods imported, which the importers, M/s. Metaltone (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. declared as "Zinc Ash". The Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay referred to the test report from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi, wherein it was opined that as the metallic zinc content in the sample was 85.7% it could be considered as zinc dross. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) observed that as per ISI specifications and the Minutes of the Expert Committee's Meeting, the minimum content of zinc in zinc dross should be in the range of 92% and 90%. As the zinc content in the sample was 85.7%, he gave a benefit of doubt to the appellants and classified the goods imported as Zinc ash.3. When the matter was called on 21-8-1998, no one appeared for the respondents. Earlier, the notice sent...
Tag this Judgment!Texmaco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC462Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 132/89, dated 17-7-1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta confirming the Order-in-Original 65/88, dated 22-12-1988 rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant, has filed the present appeal.2. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (for short, BHEL) required two numbers of special wagons for transporting heavy duty transformers.They issued a purchase order and subsequently an amendment of purchase order with the appellant for supply and assembly of the wagons. The assembly was carried out by the appellant using a consignment of components imported by BHEL from Sweden, wheel sets imported by the appellant from abroad as also some items manufactured by the appellant.Apparently, at the instance of the Central Excise Department, appellant paid central excise duty on the clearance of wagons allegedly manufactured by the appellant and subsequently filed refund claim on the ground that the appellant was not manufacturer of w...
Tag this Judgment!Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC307Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.89-94-Collector, dated 30-12-1994 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill confirming demand of duty of Rs. 43,93,220/- under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts as stated in the memorandum of appeal can be summarised as follows. Appellant owns a printing press and has been printing various flexible laminates used as packaging material for food and other allied products manufactured by customers of the appellant. The motifs and pictorial representations of the products of the Customers are printed by the appellant in the printing press using printing cylinders which are manufactured by M/s. Helio Gravure, a Division of the appellant - Company and located in the same premises though operating with a separate Central Excise licence. M/s. Helio Gravure produces printing cylinders according...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Kotvala Vs. Prem Saral
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT74; 1999(49)DRJ665
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the Order dated February 21, 1998 passed by Ms. R. Kiran Nath, Rent Controller Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/tenant on the ground that the petitioner was an employee in Delhi Vidyut Board and was due to retire w.e.f. April 30, 1998. The learned Judge has interpreted the provisions of Section 14C of the Act and held that the petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of Delhi Administration as he was an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board and, consequently rejected the petition. Section 14C of the Act reads as under :'14C. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to Central Government and Delhi Administration employees. (1) Where the landlord is a retired employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration, and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence, suc...
Tag this Judgment!Lalman Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)693; 1999(1)Crimes484; 75(1998)DLT224; 1998(47)DRJ121
J.B. Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 6.8.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in FIR No.84/90, P.S. Paschim Vihar whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. One lakh and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The appellant was provided an amices Curiae. Learned amices Curiae has contended that the conviction is invalid and unjustified on the material available on record. He has raised several legal pleas besides challenging the reliance placed by the Trial Court on the oral testimony.3. Briefly the facts are that a police party led by Ran Singh, Sub-lnspector posted at Crime Branch, Dev Nagar Along with police officials, namely, Gurmeet Singh, Sub-Inspector, Sandeep Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Jai Bhagwan and...
Tag this Judgment!P. Bhandari Vs. Retreat Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)981; 76(1998)DLT450; 1999(48)DRJ413
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1.The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether a co-operative society can deviate from the principle of seniority of its members in the matter of allotment of flats/plots. The Retreat Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a group housing society as its name suggests. The object of the Society was to acquire land for development and construction of residential flats for its members. The Society acquired land at Patparganj, Delhi where it proposed to construct residential flats in two blocks. The first block of flats was to be constructed in Phase I and the second was to be constructed in Phase II. The flats to be constructed were of two types, type A having a covered area of 1,050 sq.ft. and type B having a covered area of 1,400 sq.ft. The petitioner is one of the founder members of the Society her membership number being 9. She had registered for a type B flat in Phase I on 17th October, 1979. The...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Cylinders and Containers Vs. Hindustan General Industries Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi418; [2001]103CompCas161(Delhi); 75(1998)DLT889
Mohd. Shamim, J.1. Plaintiff through the present suit want to recover a sum of Rs. 3,54,217.04 including interest amounting to Rs. 1,24,200/- alleged to have been deposited with the defendants by way of advance price of certain machines, including a 300 tonne deep drying press.2. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is as under : that the plaintiff are a limited liability company. Shri R. K. Bhalla is the Managing, Director of the said company and is, as such, competent to bring forward the present suit and to sign and verify the plaint. He has also otherwise been authorised to file the present suit through a resolution dated January 14, 1984.3. Defendant No. 1 had entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of certain machines, including 300 tonne deep drying press oh 'no profit no loss' basis. The plaintiff in connection therewith deposited with defendant No! 1 a sum of Rs. 4,05,000/- by way of advance. Defendant No. 1 had oral discussions with the plaintiff on Octo...
Tag this Judgment!Little Angles Public School Society and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT521
K. Ramamoorthy, J. C.W. 3775/91 1. The Little Angels Public School Society is the writ petitioner. The petitioner prays for quashing the demand made by the Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) in its letter dated 6.11.1991. It is stated that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner has to own a building for the purpose of running a school for imparting education as envisaged by the object of the Society. The petitioner applied to Delhi Development Authority (the second respondent) for allotment of a plot of land.2. On 28.3.1988 the Deputy Director, Directorate of Education, Delhi, in response to the petitioner's letter it is stated that the case of the petitioner had been sponsored and recommendations had been made to the second respondent. The petitioner gave an undertaking in the following terms:It is undertaken on behalf of the Society that Society will be willing to pay premium Rs. 8 lacs per acre plus annual g...
Tag this Judgment!