Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 6 of about 205 results (0.020 seconds)R.C. Verma (Capt.) (Retd.) Vs. Army Welfare Housing Organisation and A ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)809; 1999(49)DRJ295
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. Pursuant to an order of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. 1260/1991 and C.M. 1991/1991 disputes arising between the petitioner and the respondent were referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the respondent. The petitioner was an allottee of a flat in a certain scheme of the respondent. His allotment of that flat was cancelled on the ground that he entered into some deal to dispose of that flat. By letter sent in December, 1990 and January, 1991 the amount of Rs.3 lakhs paid by the petitioner was sought to be returned to him. A writ petition was moved challenging the aforesaid cancellation of the allotment of flat by the petitioner in which this court having found that there is an arbitration agreement existing between the parties directed for reference of the disputes to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chairman of the respondent in terms of the arbitration agreement. Pursuant thereto the arbitrator was appointed. The said arbitrator e...
Tag this Judgment!Maj. Gen. (Dr.) C.M. Khanna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT466
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.1.1999 in and by which the petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 11.1.1999. On that day, the petitioner was working as Brig (L/Maj General), The petitioner had rendered 36 years of service in the Indian Army as a Doctor and he was to retire from 30.6.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 19.6.1997 the Ministry of defense issued proceedings relating to the retirement of service officers permanently seconded to DRDO (Department of Research & Development Organisation). The same reads as under:'1. I am directed to intimate that the following officers permanently seconded to DRDO will retire from Army Service with effect from the dates mentioned against them on attaining the age of superannuation :(a) MajGen KC Agrawal IC-14362, Engrs Adviser, Engg Systems DRDO HQ, New Delhi. 31.7.98 (b)MajGen A Mehta IC-14874, EME OSD, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.30.11.98 (c)MajGen VN Karande IC-16461, EME VRDE, Ahmednagar.31....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1156TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order.2. Heard both sides with reference to the appeal filed by the Revenue.According to department, the refund was barred by lime since the duty was not paid under protest. On the other hand, Shri N. Mullick, learned Advocate submits that the question of time bar does not arise in this case since the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the party and party is claiming the refund in consequence of the order of the Tribunal. I agree with this view and accordingly, the department has no case on this issue. However, there is some justification in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue that issue with reference to the unjust enrichment in terms of Section 11-B of the Act requires to be examined by the adjudicating authority. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of Indian reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247. I am of the view that issue requires ...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT602TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the M/s. Calcutta Steel Industries with reference to the common impugned order involving common issues and they are therefore taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The issue relates to unjust enrichment. It is settled position that the burden lies on the party to prove that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customer.3. Arguing for the appellants, Shri P.S. Bedi learned Consultant submitted that there was no mention of duty element in the invoice and in fact no duty has been passed on to the customers. The presumption of the Assistant Collector based on the GPI is not correct and the evidence placed by the party has not been properly considered by the Assistant Commissioner. He submitted that the following documents have been placed before the Assistant Collector as can be seen from the internal page five of his order :- 1. Balance Sheets, P & L Account and Manufacturing and Trading account.4. He drew out at...
Tag this Judgment!India Polyfibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC221Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF). They commenced their manufacturing operations in January, 1987.1.2 It appears that there had been disputes between the appellants and the Revenue authorities about the classification of different types of wastes arising in the course of manufacture of PSF. The said wastes are (1) undrawn waste, (2) crimped uncut waste and (3) cut and process waste.1.3 At the initial stage, a show cause notice dated 21-7-1987 was issued to the appellants demanding duty on the aforesaid three types of wastes as under :- Another show cause notice dated 3-1-1989 was also issued demanding duty on crimped uncut waste cleared during the period from 5-8-1987 to 24-7-1998.1.4 After visiting the factory of the appellants on 18-11-1990 and after studying the process of manufacture and the stages at which the waste arises, the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad passed an order dated 11-1-1991 holding that undrawn waste a...
Tag this Judgment!Blue Dart Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT102TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the present appellants against the order of the Collector of Customs (Judicial), Mumbai, dated 4-7-1991 by which 51 Fax machines were directed to be confiscated with an option to redeem the machines on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.2. Shri Vishal Dutta, ld. Counsel, appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants were a leading courier company incorporated under the Companies Act. In 1987 one Mr. Prasad of M/s.Micro Documentation Center Company (MDCC) offered to sell to the appellants Fax machines and on the basis of the said offer the appellants had placed an order for one Canon Fax Machine at the agreed price of Rs. 1,05,000/- which was paid by cheque dated 9-7-1987. The Department alleged that the said Fax machine, among others sold by M/s.MDCC to various parties, including the appellants, were not imported in a bonafide manner. SCN dated 24-6-1985 was issued to a number of noticees including the present appellants allegi...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Paints and Varnish Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC28Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Addendum to order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, which is captioned as Addendum to Order-in-Original No. 19/Collector/93.2. In this Addendum to the Order-in-Original, the Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,55,151.91 for the period July, 1986 to July, 1990 on the clearance of cement oxide colour by the appellant.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that a show cause notice was issued in respect of cement oxide colour and two other products of the appellant. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut and vide adjudicating Order-in-Original No. 19/Collector/93, dated 16-9-1993, he submits that in the adjudication order, in the order portion in respect of cement oxide colour, no demand of duty was made. He submits that after more than 16 months, the impugned Addendum was issued. He submits that after passing the adjudication order dated 16-9-1993...
Tag this Judgment!Anglo Dutch Paints, Colour and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC543Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 28.10.1993.2. In the impugned order the benefit of notification no. 114/73 dated 30.4.1973 was denied on the product 'dry distemper' and oxide colour manufactured by the appellant.3. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of various types of paints, colours and varnishes. The appellant filed the classification list and claimed the benefit of notification 114/73 dated 30.4.1973.The benefit of notification is denied to the product 'dry distemper' on the ground that it contains calcite, carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) and glue and the notification 114/73 provides that exemption shall not be applicable to any mixture if any excisable goods other than those specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification are present therein. The glue, carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) are excisable goods.Therefore, in terms of provision 3 of the notification, the exemption is not available to the dry distemper. The exemption und...
Tag this Judgment!South Delhi Cancer Detection and Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC657Tri(Delhi)
1. These are four appeals filed by the above appellants with reference to the common impugned order involving common issues and therefore they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants M/s. South Delhi Cancer Detection & Research Institute which is a unit of M/s ADS Diagnostic Ltd., B-22, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, according to the Department, had imported one CT (Computerised Tomography) Scanner and one Ultrasound Scanner along with accessories and spares duty free under the provision of Customs Notification No. 279/83, dated 30-9-1983 and that the appellants M/s. South Delhi Cancer Detection & Research Institute had not fulfilled the post importation condition of providing free treatment on an average to atleast 40% of its total outdoor patients as stipulated in the aforesaid notification. Accordingly, the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner who has ordered confiscation of CT Scanner Hit...
Tag this Judgment!Attar Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)397; 1999CriLJ2065; ILR1999Delhi187
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition challenges the detention order dated 17th July, 1998 passed by respondent No. 2, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner. 2. It is, inter alia, alleged that on the basis of a specific intelligence, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi, intercepted two tempos bearing Registration Nos. DL-1LB-0213 and DL-1LA-3728 just as the goods being carried in them were about to be off-loaded in front of godown-cum-residence of one Tej Veer Singh, located at Khasra No.16, Gali No. 3, R-Block, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi, on 1st May, 1998 at about 9.45 PM. Dheer Singh, co-detenu, was present on the spot at the time of interception of the two tempos which were loaded with goods packed in hessain cloth. Similar type of packages were lying next to the doorsteps of the said premises. One of the packages on being opened w...
Tag this Judgment!