Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 15 of about 205 results (0.019 seconds)Paam Pharmaceuticals (Delhi) Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC79
1. M/s. Paam Pharmaceuticals (Delhi) Ltd. are in Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 1-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi rejecting a refund claim of Rs. 3,92,932.05.2. Brief facts are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals in Noida Export Processing Zone, cleared a quantity of 850 kgs. of Tetracycline Hydrochloride to their DTA unit at Sikandrabad. This removal was made out of 1000 kg. of Tetracycline Hydrochloride imported by the appellants in July, 1994 at nil rate of Customs duty. The appellants' contention was that the said transfer was actually in return of the material of the same grade which the Noida EPZ had received from their DTA unit earlier. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs who had adjudicated the matter had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants had not been able to show the accounts maintained by the EPZ unit in respect of receipts from the DTA unit. The appellants had not been able to do...
Tag this Judgment!Cc Vs. Satpal Kanojia
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC220Tri(Delhi)
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent.The notice issued to the respondent was received back with the postal remarks "Addressee Left". In these circumstances the appeal is taken up in the absence of the respondent. The brief facts of the case are as under: On 28.1.1996, one passenger namely Satpal Kanojia S/o. Sh. Jhau Ram holder of Passport No. C-670801 resident of M/s. Pal Dry Cleaner, G.T. Road, Goraya District Jallandhar (hereinafter called the pax) arrived at IGI Airport from Dubai by Emirates flight No. EK-702. The pax on arrival from Dubai reported at customs counter no. 14 and declared one colour T.V. Sony KCV-14, one Radio Cassette Recorder Sony CFSW-4355, 42 Gold Biscuits of 10 tolas each of 'Johnson Mathey London' weighing 4-914 Kg and one Aiwa Music System NSX-999 and personal effects. The passenger had paid customs duty on Colour Television, Radio Cassette Recorder (RCR), 42 Gold Biscuits and Music System vide B.R. No. 44873 dated 28.1.1996 ...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT309TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Motilal Padampal Udyog Ltd. is whether the exemption under Notification No. 19/88 is available to the product spent Nickel Catalyst.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured Vanaspati and availed Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. One of the inputs used by them was Nickel Catalyst. The residue which came out after the completion of process of manufacture was known as spent Nickel catalyst which was disposed of by them as waste material. The Collector, Central Excise demanded Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 7385.70 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- holding that spent Nickel Catalyst was classifiable under Heading 26.20 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and as the same was exempted from payment of duty, the appellants should not have availed Modvat credit; that since they preferred to avail the Modvat credit, they ought to have paid...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash Vs. S.N. Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)535
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner challenges the judgment dated 7th December, 1997 passed by the Court of Commercial Judge, Delhi in Suit No.121/97. The said suit was filed by respondent No.1 M/s. S.N. Chit Fund Pvt. Limited against the defendants under Order xxxvII CPC for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,934/- along with costs and interest. The petitioner herein was defendant No. 2 in the suit. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were defendants 1 and 3 respectively. 2. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) became subscriber to Chit Series SNCF/24 of the value of Rs. 50,000/- agreeing to pay 20 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2500/- and he became the prize winner of Rs. 32,500/- in the auction and received the said amount by cheque dated 20th December, 1993. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood surety for the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 stopped payment of balance installments w.e.f. April, 1994 and a sum of Rs. 37,500/- stood outstanding towards balance installments and a su...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Verma Vs. Karol Bagh Bangiya Sansad
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)525; 78(1999)DLT835; 1999(49)DRJ729; 1999RLR218
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'Act'), the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 2. Mr. M.L. Lonial, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no dispute that the petitioner was a widow and the premises in question was a residential house. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has further contended that the finding of the learned Additional Rent Controller that as the petitioner was residing in House No.C-2/10, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, which was taken on rent, and the eviction petition filed by the landlord of the said house having been dismissed, the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide, is perverse and untenable in law. 3. On the other hand, Mr.A Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that in an eviction petition filed under the special category i.e. under Sections 14-B to 14-D of the A...
Tag this Judgment!G. Senthil Kumar (Dr.) Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)850
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner applied for admission to the Post Graduate Course in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for the Session January 1999. He appeared in the written examination held on 6.12.98 and got rank No. 24 in the merit list. The petitioner participated in the First Counselling on 28th December, 1998 for allocation of disciplines. Though the petitioner wanted a seat in M.D. (General Medicine), no seat was available in the said discipline at his rank. Hence the petitioner provisionally took a seat in M.D. (Psychiatry), thinking that a seat in M.D. (General Medicine) might become available in the Second Counselling or thereafter. But during the Second Counselling also no seat was available in M.D. (General Medicine) at his rank. However, he did not confirm the seat in M.D. (Psychiatry) which he had taken provisionally during the First Counselling. As per the Prospectus the last date for admission was 31st January, 1999. On 16.1.99, the respondent advert...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Vs. S.N. Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT617
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the judgment dated 7th December, 1997 passed by the Court of Commercial Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 121 /1997. The said suit was filed by respondent No. 1 M/s. S.N. Chit Fund Pvt. Limited against the defendants under Order xxxvII, CPC for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,934 / - along with costs and interest. The petitioner herein was defendant No. 3 in the suit. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were defendants 1 and 2 respectively.2. According to the plain tiff, defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) became subscriber to Chit Series SNCF/24 of the value of Rs. 50,000/- agreeing to pay 20 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2,500/- and he became the prize winner of Rs. 32,500/- in the auction and received the said amount by cheque dated 20th December, 1993. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood surety for the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 stopped payment of balance installments w.e.f. April, 1994 and a sum of Rs. 37,500/- stood outstanding towards balance install...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT64TriDel
P.C. Jain, Vice President 1. Matter being of classification under the Customs Tariff, is of recurring nature.2. Miscellaneous Application is allowed.3. Case fixed for 17-5-1999....
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Gupta and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC475Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, has confiscated 3 antique pieces viz. part of pillar depicting Dharam Chakra and other decorated motifs, part of pillar depicting stupa and other decorated motifs and seated Jaina Thirthankara in Dhyana Mudra on a Pedestal, totally valued at Rs. 95 lakhs, attempted to be ex-ported under Shipping Bill dated 30.4.1992 in contravention of Section 3 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 which prohibits export of antiquities outside India, confiscated remaining brass, wooden, iron and stone artware covered under the same shipping bill, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the first appellant, penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the second appellant and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the third appellant. The first appellant has been penalised as he is the person who had filed the papers for the export of the consignment in the name of M/s. Nova Fashions, as the representative of M/s. S.K. Bhatnagar & Co., Customs House Agent...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganganagar Bottling Co. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC54Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants herein are manufacturing Bisleri Club Soda and aerated water falling under Chapter 2201 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been brought on record that another firm namely M/s.Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad is using the said brand name 'Bisleri' on mineral water and that brand name was registered in the name of Aqua Minerals.3. Revenue denied the benefit of Notification 1/93-CE. to the appellants herein on the ground that mineral water is non-excisable and, therefore, Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is not eligible for SSI exemption for that product Bisleri Mineral Water. Consequently, it has been found by the Lower authorities that the appellants herein are hit by mischief of para 4 of the said Notification 1 /93 inasmuch as the brand name owner of Bisleri i.e. M/s. Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. are not eligible for SSI exemption in view of the mineral water being non-excisable.4. Opposing the aforesaid finding, ld. Advocate Shri K.K. Anand submits that on the plain r...
Tag this Judgment!