Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 4 of about 205 results (0.024 seconds)C.C.E. Vs. Vimal Alloys Ltd. and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC169
1. These four appeals have been filed by the Revenue. These appeals pertain to the eligibility of Modvat credit on oxygen/acetylene gases.Since the issue in all four appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents were using oxygen/acetylene gases for breaking/cutting of inputs like billets, blooms, slabs, ingots etc. and they were availing credit of duty taken on the inputs under Modvat scheme. The department alleged that oxygen/acetylene gases were not inputs and, therefore, Modvat credit was not admissible on these two items. Accordingly show cause notices were issued to the aforesaid four respondents asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be disallowed to them on the ground that cutting of bigger pieces of scrap into smaller one by oxygen/acetylene gas was neither a part of the integrated process nor it was essentially required in the process of manufacture of...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kanta JaIn Vs. M.S. JaIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)32; AIR1999Delhi281; 1999(50)DRJ232; ILR1999Delhi232
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of possession over a portion of the property bearing No. 49/7, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, shown by red colour in the plan annexed with the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property for the sake of convenience) and for recovery of mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 1400/- for use and occupation of the same. The plaintiff also claims pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2100/- per mensem. 2. Brief facts which are required to be gone into for the purposes of disposal of the present suit are as under: that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the property bearing house No. 49, Road No.7, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The plot of land for construction of the said house was purchased by the plaintiff from one Shri Tek Chand through registered sale deed dated April 25, 1964. The disputed property was was got mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the record of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on June 17, 1964. The...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Pra ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)515; [1999]97CompCas382(Delhi); 79(1999)DLT234; 1999(49)DRJ329
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited complainant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Colgate') filed a complaint along with complainant No. 2, claiming to be a consumer, before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') against M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited complaining that the advertisement campaign of the letter regarding its dental cream New pepsodent disparages the leading toothpaste namely Colgate Dental Cream manufactured by complainant No.1. It was further alleged that M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited was indulging in unfair trade practices. The product 'New pepsodent' was recently introduced in the market. The advertisement campaign of this product through the print, visual media and otherwise, was being carried out in a manner which misleads the public at large while at the same time it is disparaging to the product of complainant No.1, namely, Colgate Dental Cream. In its various advertisements Hindustan...
Tag this Judgment!Dhl Worldwide Express Vs. Associated Buying Services
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT168
M.K. Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit under Order 37, CPC against the defendant seeking to recover Rs. 27,06,000/-. The defendant entered appearance in the suit on 6.3.1997 after giving notice of such appearance to the Counsel for the plaintiff. Accordingly, an application was filed in this Court seeking for issuance of summons for judgments to the defendant. Summons for judgment was accordingly issued, on receipt of which the defendant has filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3, CPC along with an affidavit seeking leave to defend the suit. As against the aforesaid application filed by the defendant, the plaintiff has filed its reply and the parties were heard at length on the aforesaid application.2. The issue that arises for my consideration, at this stage, is whether the defendant could be granted leave to defend the suit and whether the defense sought to be raised by the defendant in the present application could be said to be plausible entitling the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kanta Chakravarty Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi413; 79(1999)DLT210
Vijender Jain, J.1. Interesting question involved in this matter for adjudication is as to the use of word 'owner' in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereafterreferred to as 'Act'). Mr. Ahluwalia has contended that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act in specific terms provides that a contract for sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge on such property and agreement to sell is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document in the form of sale deed to be registered in accordance with law.2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the property in question, i.e. House No. W-111A, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi was owned by Shri Sushil Kanta Chakravarty. On 29.6.1977 ground floor of the premises was leased out by said Shri Sunil Kanta Chakravarty to the respondent for residential purposes. On 20.10.1986 said Shri Sunil Kanta Chakravarty agreed to sell aforesaid premises to his brother Shri Sushil Kanta Chakravarty. On 11.2.1...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Parle Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC266Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal preferred" by Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus. dated 17-2-1986 is available in respect of the high forming, cutting and wrapping machine.2. Shri M.S. Ramanathan, ld. DR submitted that M/s. Parle Products Pvt.Ltd. had imported a machine which was declared by them as "High Speed Automatic Toffee wrapping Machine". However, the machinery consisted of three units - batch former, rope sizer and wrapping machine; that the catalogue clearly revealed that all the three units constituted a continuous and integrated line and performed the function of producing sweets of exact sizes and wrapping; the Notification No. 225/86 .provides a concessional rate of duty in respect of high speed automatic wrappers (SI. No. 29); that the concession was meant only for the machinery performing the wrapping function only and not for a composite machine doing other functions. He, further, submitted that the intention of the Government was to pr...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Paint Colour and Varnish Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT766TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue agitated is about denial of Modvat credit on the strength of invoices not indicating the PLA entry number and again denial of Modvat credit on the strength of extra copy of invoice.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of paints, enamels and varnish and were enjoying the benefits of credit of duty paid on inputs under the Modvat scheme. Scrutiny of RT12 returns filed by the appellants indicated that in respect of certain documents received from HPCL where the PLA entry number was not mentioned the appellants had taken Modvat credit. In respect of one document which was marked as extra copy of invoice was also utilised for taking Modvat credit as against the requirement of taking Modvat credit on duplicate copy meant for the transporter.3. The appellants have requested a decision on merits. Shri Y.R.Kilania, learned JDR along with Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned Departmental Representatives appear for the respondent Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Chandigarh Bottling Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC269Tri(Delhi)
1. The limited issue for determination in this appeal is whether the respondents were entitled to clear the inputs for home consumption on payment of duty equal to the amount which was paid by the suppliers of inputs who were enjoying the benefit of concessional rate of duty as a SSI Unit. The clearance of inputs was in November, 1993. That the respondents are manufacturer of aerated water and were availing the benefit of credit of duty paid on inputs under the Modvat scheme. During the month of November, 1993 the respondents cleared for home consumption crown cork and Carbon dioxide gas by debiting duty equal to the amount taken as Modvat credit. The department alleged that the respondents should have paid duty as if the inputs had been manufactured in their factory. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents asking them to explain as to why the differential duty should not be demanded from them on the inputs cleared by them for home consumption. They contended that they paid ...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC74
1. M/s. S.S. Pharmace (P) Ltd. have filed the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 33/9C 27-3-1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufactured or Proprietary Medicine and availed the benefit of Small Scale Exei Notification. Enquiry made by the Central Excise Officers revealed that Appellants had sold their entire products through their related persons, namely M/s. Kharbanda Drug Corporation and M/s. Poonam & Co.Shri Sanjeev Kharbanda and Mrs. Kamla Kumari, Partners of M/s.Kharbanda Drug Corporation were son and wife respectively of Shri S.S.Kharbanda Managing Director of the Appellants; that Shri Raju Kharbanda and Mrs. Nidhi Kharbanda, partners of M/s. Poonam & Co. were son and daughter in law respectively of S.S. Kharbanda. In addition both these units utilised the business premises of the Appellants for which hardly any rent was paid by them. They also utilised the telephone and telegraph code of t...
Tag this Judgment!Benze Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT146TriDel
1. The issue involved herein is regarding duty on structural by cutting to sizes the iron and steel products, by drilling holes in them and by joining them by process of welding or rivetting. The question arises whether such fabrication amounts to manufacture and whether such fabricated items are liable to duty.2. Recently the Tribunal has decided by its judgment in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh and Ors., reported in 1999 (31) RLT 5 that this activity does not amount to manufacture and items so fabricated are not new commodities.Consequently, relying upon the said judgment, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants....
Tag this Judgment!