Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 13 of about 150 results (0.019 seconds)P.G. Foils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC99
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 14-9-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the appellants manufactured 13 machines and cleared without payment of duty. A demand of duty of Rs. 1,86,638/- was confirmed in respect of these machines a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Learned Counsel submits that the Collector of Central Excise relied upon the statement of Shri Ashok P. Shah, Director of the Appellant Firm. He submits that according to Commissioner in his statement Shri Ashok Shah admitted the facts of the manufacture of these machines. He submits that Ashok Shah in his statement submits that the machines were assembled at the site of the customer. He further, submits that the machines were embedded to earth permanently hence they cannot be marketed. Therefore, no duty can be demanded on these ma...
Tag this Judgment!Fame Incorporated Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT989TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Fame Incorporated in whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is available to the goods affixed with brand name National, Sanyo etc.2. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the Appellants and the Notice issued to them has been received back from the postal authorities with the remarks "CLOSED". We, therefore, heard ld. DR and perused the records.3. We find from the memorandum of Appeal that the Appellants had themselves mentioned that Radio Cassette Recorder manufactured by them are pre-fixed with the words like "National", "Sanyo", "Takara" etc.They have also claimed that the products are sold under brand name FAME which was owned by them. In the light of their admission that the products are affixed with the words like Sanyo and National which are the manufactured & marketed by internationally known brands. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly rejected their appeal. Therefore we do not find any reason to ...
Tag this Judgment!Basic Tele Services Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)316; AIR2000Delhi1; [2000]101CompCas132(Delhi); 82(1999)DLT224; 1999(51)DRJ655
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1.The plaintiff through the above application want this court to issue a direction to defendant No. 2 herein not to make payment to defendant No. 1 under the bank guarantee No. 796/372/95 dated June 22, 1995 for Rs. 50 crores. 2. Brief facts which led to the presentation of the aforementioned application are as under : that the plaintiff herein submitted an offer in response to tender enquiry No. 314-7/94-PHC dated June 22, 1995 on January 1, 1996 along with an earnest money bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 50 crores vide bank guarantee No. 796/372/95 through Deutsche Bank for the Provision of telephone services on license for the service area of Tamil Nadu. The guarantee period of the said bank guarantee was extended from time time on the request of defendant No. 1. The bid of the plaintiff for telecom circle of Tamil Nadu was found to be the highest. Accordingly defendant No. 1 by their letter dated March 13, 1996 issued a letter of intent to the plaintiff for aw...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjiv Nanda Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)188; 82(1999)DLT588
ORDERCrl. M. (M) 2306/991. By filing the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is facing trial under Section 304 Part I/308/201/34 IPC, seeks his release on bail. 2. In the shocking incident which took place in the intervening night of 9th/10th January, 1999 at about 4.30 AM in front of Car Care Centre petrol pump at Lodhi Road six persons were killed and one sustained grievous injuries. It is alleged by the prosecution that on receipt of a copy of D.D. No. 27A dated 10.1.1999 SI Kailash Chander reached the said place of occurrence and there he found Ram Raj, Rajan Kumar and one more person who later on came to be identified as Gulab, lying dead. He was informed that four persons who were also injured had been taken to hospital in a PCR van. On the spot SI Kailash Chander also found a bumper, rear view mirror and pieces of glass of a black car lying scattered in an area of about 100/125 feet in addition to a broken number plate. On joining the various pieces of ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi State Industrial Development Vs. Shri Ashish Anand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)294; 2000(1)ARBLR155(Delhi); 82(1999)DLT458
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of is 12455/95, being an application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, is 12456/95, being an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and is 12457/95, being an application seeking to stay of operation of judgment/decree dated 14.4.1986. 2. The relevant facts in brief may be noted : The petitioner, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. had filed the above petition, seeking inter alias to have the award 18.4.1982 made rule of the Court. Notices of filing of the award were issued and the respondent/applicant filed objections to the said award vide is 3117/83, against making award rule of the Court. The said application was dismissed in default on 20.7.1984 but on the application of respondent/applicant, is 3117/83 was restored. Pleadings were completed in is 3117/83 and issues were framed on 15.11.1985. As none appeared on behalf of respondent/applicant on 4.4.1986, is 3177/83 was again dismissed in default. By or...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Singh and Others Vs. Indian Airlines and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)268; 82(1999)DLT697; 1999(51)DRJ729
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of all the aforesaid petitions as common issues are involved in all these petitions and similar grounds were urged before me. 2. In these petitions the petitioners have contended that the respondents have not complied with and /or blatantly voilated and disobeyed the directions issued by this court in the judgment and order passed by this court on 9.5.1997 in various writ petitions including civil Writ Petition No. 413/1994. Number of petitioners filed writ petitions in this court contending inter alias that the petitioners had been repeatedly approaching the respondents for their appointment in view of their empanelment in the select panel for appointment to various posts under the respondents. According to them all the petitioners were selected pursuant to the advertisement made by the respondents and they were empanelled, which panel was approved by the Competent Authority on 20.11.1990. It was also c...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Gurmukh Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)635; AIR2000Delhi48; [2001]103CompCas751(Delhi); 1999(51)DRJ491
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1.In order to appreciate the legal nuances of this case a brief history of the litigation would have to be embarked upon. A suit for the recovery of Rs.1,83,142.97 was filed in 1986. As the Defendants did not appear, they were proceeded ex-parte and eventually on 17.5.1989 the suit was decreed, as prayed for in the plaint. The Decree was against the Defendants/Judgment Debtors Shri Gurmukh Singh, who had availed of the credit facilities, and Nischattar Kaur and Shri Amarjit Singh as the Guarantors. The Execution petition, dated 3.11.1993, was filed almost two months later on 29.1.1994. The facts set out by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta (Objectors) is that they purchased the property sought to be attached and sold in these execution proceedings. vis...B-34, Jhilmail Indl. Area, G.T. Road, Shahdra, Delhi (the said property) from Shri Bhupinder Kumar Jain in October 1988, after an 'Agreement of Sale' had been executed between them on 30.9.1988...
Tag this Judgment!Calcom Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT739TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of the pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 1,59,708/-.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that applicants made an import of keyboards and printers for calculators and claimed the concessional rate of duty under Notification 232/83-Cus.for keyboards and the benefit of Notification 237/83-Cus. for printers for calculators. He submits that the Notification No. 232/83-Cus.provides concessional rate of duty for switches and the keyboards with which the particular circuit of the calculator is activated, hence are switches. He, further, submits that Notification 237/83-Cus. provides concessional rate of duty only on line printers and the notification does not provide concessional rate of duty on line printers, which are to be used only with the computers. He submits that there is no bar in the notification for exemption to such line printers. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed.3. Shri Ashok Kumar, ...
Tag this Judgment!Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC873
1. This is a matter which has been referred to this Larger Bench constituted by the President by order dated 21.6.1999 pursuant to Miscellaneous Order No. 54/98-C passed by one of the Benches of this Tribunal. The question referred relates to the interpretation of Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and its proviso in particular. The Miscellaneous Order No. 54/98-C, proposing reference of the question to the Larger Bench had observed as under: "We find that there are conflicting views on the point as to whether the date of knowledge by the Department is relevant according to the provisions of Section 11A and whether the notice issued beyond the period of six months from the date of knowledge, should be held to be barred by the limitation." 2. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to refer to the said section which reads as follows: Section 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. -- (1) When any duty of ex...
Tag this Judgment!Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT184TriDel
1. Issue raised in these appeals are common. So we consider it advantageous to deal with them by this common judgment. Appellants in these appeals are manufacturers of cotton and acrylic grey yarn. This grey yarn manufactured by them are excisable goods. They clear grey yarn from their factory to their depots. In the case relating to Malwa Cotton and Spg. Mills, the period with which we are concerned is from March, 1994 to March, 1995. In the case of other appellant, i.e., M/s.Nahar Fibre Ltd., the period is from March, 1994 to August, 1994, though they are covered by two Show Cause Notices for March, 1994 to June, 1994 and July to August, 1994 resulting in two orders by the adjudicating authority and two appellate orders. During above mentioned periods, nearly 95 per cent of the produce, namely, grey yarn were sold to wholesale dealers. Nearly 5 per cent were sent to job workers for dyeing. From the job workers the dyed yarn is received back. They were subsequently sold to other deal...
Tag this Judgment!