Delhi Court September 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.
Nasib Kaur and ors. Vs. Gurucharan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC181; 1999ACJ1073; 1998VIIAD(Delhi)29; 76(1998)DLT687; (1999)121PLR23
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.2. Ld. counsel for the appellants states that appellant No.7, Sube Singh, had expired and his legal representatives are already on record. Moreover, the deceased Sube Singh had already relinquished his claim in favor of appellant Nos. 2 to 6, his grandchildren and children of the deceased Amrik Singh. Ld. counsel submits that name of appellant No. 7 be deleted from the array of appellants. This prayer is allowed. Name of appellant No. 7 be deleted accordingly.3. In this case, learned counsel for the appellants raised the following three points:1. That the respondent No. 5/New India Assurance Company, the insurer of truck No. PUR-3641, was liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal against it and that it was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. That the accident has taken place on account of composite negligence of two truck drivers leading the death of deceased Amrik Singh and the appellants are entitle...
M.L. Mahajan Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)354; 76(1998)DLT701
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner entered into a contract agreement with the respondent No.1 construction of 60 Janata Houses at Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The said contract agreement contained an arbitration clause being clause No. 25. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid contract and accordingly the said disputes were referred to arbitration by the Engineer Member of the respondent No.1, who was the appointing authority under the contract. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims of the parties and the said arbitrator after hearing the parties and receiving evidence on record, made and published his award on 10.4.1991. The said award was filed in this Court as against which objection were filed by the respondent which were registered as I.A. No. 13100/1991. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid objections filed by the respondents as also the suit filed by the petitioner. 2. I have heard the petitioner wh...
Nirmalendu Dev Nath and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)458; 4(1998)CLT324; 75(1998)DLT765; 1999(48)DRJ147
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing Award No. 13/95-96 dated December 20, 1995 (Annexure 'P-7' to the writ petition) rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, and the proceedings culminating into it. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows :-2. The petitioners purchased twenty plots measuring 4 Bigha 4 Biswas, located at Pankha Road, New Delhi, in a residential colony known as Vashisht Park Extension, Village Dabri, Delhi. These purchases were made from agriculturists in the year 1974 by way of registered sale deeds. After purchase of the land the petitioners constructed tenements which are being used for residential as well as commercial purposes. The area has been urbanised and the petitioners have the facilities of water, electricity, telephones and ration cards. The names of the residents including that of the petitioners figure in the voters' l...
Udal Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ583
Vijender Jain, J. 1. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length.2. Briefly stating the facts of the case is that pursuant to the first charge sheet, which was served upon the petitioner by the respondents on 17.8.1978, the petitioner was dismissed from service. That action of the respondents was assailed by the petitioner by instituting a suit for permanent injunction seeking permanent injunction against the respondents restraining the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Committee (in short 'NDMC') from acting upon the resolution of dismissing the petitioner. The said suit was decreed in favor of the an appeal. Not only that the appeal was not preferred by the respondent but respondents on 18.5.1982 passed a resolution giving effect to the judgment passed by the Court in favor of the petitioner thereby closing the case against the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was again taken back into service, in the year 1983 petitioner cros...
Plasticolor Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT983TriDel
1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Plasticolor Corporation against order in Appeal Nos. 199-200/92/CE/COLLR (A) AHD, dated 25-3-1992 rejecting their refund claim for the period from 6-9-1983 to 31-7-1985 in respect of their product cable sheathing compound.2.1 Shri Devan Parikh, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured coloured master batches. Three show cause notices were issued in 1980 and 1981 for demanding duty in respect of master batches by the Department contending that the product was classifiable under Item 14-I(1)(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act as against their claim of the product being non excisable; that the Assistant Commissioner dropped the demand; however, the Commissioner in review Order No. 6/83 confirmed the demand; on appeal by them, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter in June, 1987; the Commissioner in September, 1987 reconfirmed the demand on remand; the Appellate Tribunal in Order No. 337/97-WRB, dated 8-1-1997 cl...
Varun Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1134TriDel
1. By Order-in-Original dated 28-8-95, (the impugned order) Commissioner of Central Excise,, Chandigarh confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 7,86,266.11 against the present appellants. The Commissioner found that the charge of excesses/shortages noticed by the officers on their visit to the appellants' factory on 1-8-87 arid the allegation of clandestine removal had been established.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate who appeared for the appellants explained briefly the facts of the case and submitted that the impugned order arose from the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 7-2-94 remanding the matter for de novo adjudication with a direction to the adjudicating authority to consider the appellants request for cross-examination. He submitted that the appellants were engaged in the processing of grey fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 54, 55 and 60 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The factory of the appellant was visited by the officers of the Anti-Evasion Department of...
Cement Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT828TriDel
1. The Application is for dispensing with pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 2,81,66,1637- and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs.2. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the applicant, Cement Corporation of India, manufacture cement and availed of exemption under Notification No. 24/91, dated 25-7-1991 during the period from 25-7-1991 to 28-2-1994. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, denied the benefit of Notification holding that the licenced capacity of the applicant was 2 lakh tonnes per annum which is more than the capacity of 1.98 lakh specified in the notification. The Commissioner also held that as the applicant always indicated installed capacity and the letter dated 4-12-1973 granting licence for installed capacity of 2 lakhs tonnes was not brought on record, the extended period for issuing the show cause notice was rightly invoked. The ld. Senior Advocate submitted that the installed capacity of the applicant's factory did not exceed 600 tonnes per...
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT689TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., the matter relates to the admissibility of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 47,925/- availed of by the appellants under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') on Mild Steel (M.S.) Plates and Channels. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sitapur, had disallowed the Mod-vat credit and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 47,925/-.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 13-7-1998 when Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that the MS Plates and Channels were the capital goods. Under Rule 57Q of the Rules, they were used in the manufactured of structure which was covered by the expression 'Plant' and that the M.S. Plates and Channels thus were components of the plant. As the plant was to be used for manufacturing the sugar, he submitted that the M.S. Plates and Channels were the eligible inputs for the purposes of Modvat credit.3. In reply, Shri T.A. Arunac...
Smithkline Beecham Consumer Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(81)LC273Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee involving common issues and therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri G. Shiv Dass, learned advocate submitted that appeal No.E/715/94-A is the main appeal involving the dispute with reference to the deductions and second appeal E/2679/94-A relates to consequential demand with reference to the first appeal.3. He submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of malted food like 'Horlicks' etc. They claimed abatement on account of freight and insurance, taxes like sales tax, turnover tax, discount and distribution expenses. He said that he had no quarrel with the deduction of taxes like sales tax, turnover tax etc. since the same was already considered by the authorities below. Similarly, he is not pressing the issue with reference to the distribution charges since that issue has already been covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the recalled MKF case. Hence, he confined...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. International Computers Indian
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT247TriDel
1. When the matter was called, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri S. Nunthuk, learned JDR.2. Shri S. Nunthuk, while reiterating the grounds of appeal submitted that these Interface Cable Assemblies are classifiable under 8544.00 as against the classification of 8471.00 claimed by the party and upheld by the Collector. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Toshniwal Cables v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in [1994 (72) E.L.T. 461 (Tribunal)] and also Collector of Central Excise, Raipur v. Vee Kay Electricals reported in [1995 (77) E.L.T. 420 (Tribunal)]. It was also brought to our notice that the Tribunal ruled out the classification under 8544.00 as per Order Nos. E/776-777/98-B1 in Appeal Nos. E/5383/91-B and E/5386/91-B, dated 13-4-98 [2000 (126) E.L.T. 1053 (Tri.)].3. In the wr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »