Delhi Court February 1999 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gandhi and Associates

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC587Tri(Delhi)

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 4-10-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. At the outset, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondents have filed an application under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for bringing additional evidence on record. He submits that the respondents want to place on record, additional evidence in the form of two expert opinion given by two officers of Indian Institute of Technology in respect of the goods in question.2. Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the expert opinion was not before the lower authorities. However, the opinion was obtained by the respondents in respect of the goods in question without the knowledge of the Revenue. He therefore, prays that the application be dismissed.3. Heard both sides. We find that the expert opinion is obtained by the respondents without the knowledge of the Revenue; and identity of the goods sen...

Maharashtra Safety Glass Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT459TriDel

1. In this case benefit of Notification No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-1988 has been denied to tempered glass on the ground that it is not covered by either SI. No. 18 or SI. No. 1 of the Table annexed thereto which was claimed by the appellants herein.2. The notification exempts certain specified goods connected with Solar and other natural energy. SI. No. 1 covers "Flat Plate, Solar Collectors" and SI. No. 18 covers parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified and SI.Nos. 1 to 7 above (such as solar cookers, solar crop driers etc.). The assessee contends that SI. No. 18 covers goods in dispute or alternately the goods are themselves flat plate solar collectors since the essential character of flat plate solar collector is derived from the tempered glass because such glasses perform the function of collection of Solar Energy.3. Since none appeared for the appellants in spite of notice we heard the ld. DR and perused the records and...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Neo Luxe India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT360TriDel

1. The issue involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the plastic laminated sheet is classifiable under sub-heading 3920.31 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 4823.90 as was held in the impugned order.2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that the classification of the paper based decorative laminated sheets has been made by the Apex Court under sub-heading 3920.31 in the case of Collector, Central Excise v. Wood Polymers Ltd. -1998 (97) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) and accordingly the impugned order has to be set aside.3. Shri A.V. Naik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Neoluxe India Ltd., submitted that decorative laminated sheets do not fall under sub-heading 3920.31 because for goods falling under the said sub-heading, there must come into existence plastic rigid sheet first which should be lacquered or metalled or laminated, etc., that in the process of manufacture of their impugn...

Atul Kumar Singh (Capt.) Vs. Ms. Jalveen Rosha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi38; [2000]102CompCas162(Delhi); 79(1999)DLT338; 1999(50)DRJ393; (1999)122PLR37

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.By this order, I propose to dispose of the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2.The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the allegations that the plaintiff was interested in purchasing a flat for his residence. He, thereforee, approached the defendant, who was dealing in real estate business. Sometime in the month of December; 1994, the defendant informed the plaintiff about a flat offered for sale for Rs.7,00,000/-. Due to financial constraints, the plaintiff expressed his inability to pay the entire consideration in a lump sum. However, on the defendant's suggestion to furnish some security in the form of bearer cheques for finalising the deal, the plaintiff issued the following bearer cheques in favor of the defendant. Cheque No. Date Bank Amount969772 Nil Hong Kong Bank 2,00,000/-969773 Nil Hong Kong Bank 2,00,000/-969774 Nil Hong Kong Bank 2,00,000/-969775 Nil Hong Kong Bank 1,00,000/-3.According...

Parvesh Sharma and ors. Vs. Sankalita Mudgil and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)471; 78(1999)DLT683

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The above contempt petitions and the writ petitions arise out of the order dated 29.7.1997 passed by this Court. The petitioners claim in the writ petitions that they were unjustifiably non-employed and their salaries were not paid by the respondents in the writ petitions. When the matter came up for disposal, the parties had come to an amicable settlement and recording the same this Court passed the following order: 'Rule. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the question involved in all the writ petitions is same, thereforee, these are disposed of by one order. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, senior Advocate, appearing for respondents 3 & 4 states that he has instructions from the Managing Committee of the school i.e. respondents 3 & 4 to give proposals to the petitioners for their acceptance, namely; (1) Petitioners can take compensation in full and final settlement of all their claims. That they will not claim reinstatement. This be treated as go...

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi248; [1999]98CompCas73(Delhi); 78(1999)DLT301; 1999(49)DRJ349

ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. The plaintiff through the present application want this Court to issue a restraint order restraining defendant No. 1 from encashing the Bank Guarantee No. 16/94 dated 29.10.1994 in the sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- and Bank Guarantee No. 17/94 dated 29.10.1994 in the sum of Rs. 1,02,97,377/- issued by defendant No.2. 2. Brief facts which are relevant and material for the disposal of the present application are as under: that the plaintiff are a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No.1 are a government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No.2 are a banking company formed and constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The first defendant have set up a refinery at Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh. They thus wanted to install horton spheres at the above said refinery and with the said and in view floated a tender inviting...

G.D. Green Flora Resorts Pvt. Limited Vs. M/S. Kuhn-rikon Asia Pte. Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)655; AIR1999Delhi229; 80(1999)DLT76

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for injunction, declaration and rendition of accounts on the allegations that by an agreement dated October 10, 1997 the plaintiff was appointed the sole, authorised sales and service representative for the Indian market of the Spring products of the defendant. The agreement was to commence from the 1st day of October, 1997 and was to continue until such time as either party gave three months notice in writing of its intention to cancel the agreement to the other. As per note to the agreement, it was stated that 'at the moment, practically, only those hotels earning a lot of foreign currencies, can afford to buy Spring, let say 5 stars and 5 star deluxe. From the paper, we can forecast a possibility to work as a short-term (3 years, 1998-99-2000) on about 10 projects per year of this class plus obviously we can promote to all the existing hotels around India'. Relying upon this note, it is the case of the plaintiff that the agr...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Khodiyar Construction Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT357TriDel

1. The present appeal has been preferred by Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 26-12-1994 passed by the Collector (A), Ahmedabad.2. Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR submitted that the Respondent manufactured bags and sacks of HDPE tapes and claimed classification under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Show Cause Notice was issued to them for classifying their product under sub-heading 6301.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for demanding the duty short paid during the period 1-3-1992 to 8-4-1992. The Asstt. Collector in the adjudication order dated 11-11-1993 agreed with the respondent as far as the classification of the product under sub-heading 3923.90 was concerned. However, he held that as Serial No. 39 of the Notification No. 14/92 specifically provided duty @ 25% in respect of bags or sacks falling under Heading 39.23 or Heading No. 39.26. The respondents are liable to pay the duty and they are not eligible to avail of NIL rate of duty as provided in t...

J.C. Chandiok Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)69ITD75(Delhi)

1. Under s. 254(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the President of the Tribunal has constituted the present Bench and referred the following question : "Whether the sum of Rs. 27,00,000 received by the appellant from his landlord for surrender of tenancy rights is exigible to tax ?" 2. The factual matrix of the case : The assessee is a Chartered Accountant. He was in possession of bungalow No. 3, Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi, which was used for office-cum-residential purposes.Originally the bungalow was leased under a lease deed dt. 11th June, 1956. The duration of the lease was 11 months and 29 days. The lessee was restrained from sub-letting the bungalow or any part thereof.3. On expiry of the said period of lease, the landlord sought eviction of the appellant vide Misc. suit No. 57 of 1957 before the Sub-Judge.Vide order dt. 27th December, 1960, the suit of eviction was dismissed.It was held by the Sub-Judge that the tenancy was not for 11 months and 29 day...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asian Hotels Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals of the Revenue directed against separate orders of appeal of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi dt. 13th July, 1990, and 7th August, 1991, relating to asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively and these appeals since involve similar facts and identical points. So these are consolidated and disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in : (a) directing the AO to allow assessee-company's claim of investment allowance on plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 3,57,69,003 by ignoring the material fact that the assessee-company is engaged in hotel business which is not an industrial undertaking and as such is not eligible for such an allowance; and (b) directing the AO not to include a sum of Rs. 3,92,758 paid by the assessee-company as commission to travel agents for the purposes of working out the disallowance under s. 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961." 3. Similarly, in ITA No. 7415 (Del...