Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 1 of about 164 results (0.019 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Excel India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC159
1. The Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium phosphide, zinc phosphide and phosphorous pentasulphide and filed a classification list. In the classification list, the appellant claimed the classification of aluminium phosphide and zinc phosphide under Chapter sub-heading 3808.10 of the Central Excise Tariff in respect of phosphorous pentasulphide claimed classification under Chapter Heading 2813.00 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 43/88, dated 1-3-1988. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant stating therein that the aluminium phosphide and zinc phosphite is classifiable under sub-heading 3808.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is also alleged in the show cause notice that phosphorous pentasulphide is not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 43/88 as it is being used for the manufacture ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Shiv Darshan Singh (Sh.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)226; 79(1999)DLT572; 1999(50)DRJ547; ILR1999Delhi367; (1999)122PLR15
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In this appeal filed against the order dated 25th May 1998 of a learned single Judge defendants 1 to 3/appellants have filed C.M.376/99 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking condensation of 167 days delay in filing appeal. 2. It is alleged in the application that the certified copy of the judgment under appeal was applied on 14th July 1998 and the same was prepared on 21st July 1998. This court remained closed with effect from 1st June 1998 to 7th July 1998. Thereafter, there was change in the Government panel and the appellant after taking legal opinion from the Department, approached the Department of Law and Justice for appointment of a Government counsel. The Government counsel was appointed vide order dated 7th September 1998. The files of the case were handed over on 8th September 1998 to the Government counsel who prepared the draft appeal and gave the same to the Department on 22nd September 1998. Draft appeal after vettin...
Tag this Judgment!indo American Electricals Ltd. Vs. Capital Meters Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)517; 79(1999)DLT438
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition under Section 433 read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies, Act, 1956 (for short the Act), the petitioner seeks winding up of the respondent Company on the ground of its inability to pay its debts. 2. According to the petitioner Company they had sold and delivered to the respondent super-enamelled copper wire vide two invoices, dated 14th Janu- ary, 1992 and 29th January, 1992 respectively, for Rs. 78,405/- and Rs. 84,106/-, totalling Rs. 1,62,511/- as per the terms and conditions govern- ing the sale of the said goods, the payment of the bill amounts was to be made within thirty days of the receipt of the bills/materials; on petitioner's persistent requests and demands only a sum of Rs. 1,05,697.85, towards the aforesaid amount way paid by the respondent thus leaving a balance of Rs. 56,813.15 p. as theprincipal amount due to the petitioner. The respondent having failed and neglected to pay the said balance amount, the petitioner Company sent a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sulakshan Kumar Vs. Multani Properties and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)467; 80(1999)DLT589
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the order dated 11th March, 1999 of a learned Single Judge by which the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.2. Suit was filed, inter alia,alleging that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the front covered verandah having an area of about 250 sq.ft. on the first floor of the property bearing No. H-68 Connaught Circus, New Delhi along with the right to use the common toilet in the rear portion in the year 1978 at a monthly rent of Rs.100/- by Smt.Geeta Vanti, general attorney of Sat Prakash Trehan and Bhupinder Prakash Trehan, the owners of the property with the tacit consent of defendants 2 and 3 / respondents 2 & 3. After the death of the original owners of the property their heirs sold the said property H-68, Canaught Circus, along with the other properties to M/s. Multani properties and Investment company Private Limited, defendant No. 1/responden...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Suman Mahajan Vs. Kusum Sandhu and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi314; 79(1999)DLT373; 1999(50)DRJ358
Madan B Lokur, J. 1. Admit RFA No. 449/98 and 450/98. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals were taken up for final disposal and heard on 21st April, 1999. 3. RFA No. 449/98 and R.F.A. No. 450/98 are regular first appeals instituted under the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They arise out of the judgment and decree dated 9th July 1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 862/90. The Appellant in FRA No. 449/98 is Smt. Suman Mahajan who was defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid suit and the Appellant in RFA No. 450/98 is Ved Prakash Narang who was defendant No. 2 in the said suit. Smt. Kusum Sandhu is respondent No. 1 in both the appeals. She was the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. 4. The case set up by the plaintiff was that one Smt. Gobind Kaur was the owner of a building known as Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh Building, situated at Plot No. 5 and Plot No. 8 (comprisingof Khasra Nos. 200/31 and 588/500), Bl...
Tag this Judgment!Attar Singh and ors. Vs. Airport Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT400; 1999(50)DRJ395
Madan B. Lukur, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal was taken up for final disposal and heard on 21st and 22nd April, 1999.3. The Appellants arc working as Fire Foreman (Regular) with the Airport Authority of India (for short AA1) in Safdarjung Aerodrome, New Delhi.4. According to the Appellants, AAI had formulated a 'Transfer Policy' in May 1994, which policy was issued in consultation with its recognized unions and associations. In terms of the said Policy, a seniority/priority list of officers liable for transfer was prepared. This list was operated up to and including the 1997 'transfer season'. According to the Appellants, the list showed some discrepancies with regard to their seniority/priority. Consequently, they sent representations dated 24th April, 1998 and 18th May, 1998 pointing out the discrepancies and also suggesting that transfers in the 1998 'transfer season' he made accordingly.5. The Appellants submit that their representat...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.S. Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC476Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed' by M/s. S.M.S. Udyog Ltd., being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 3-2-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, the matter relates to the classification of the imported Air Drier (Molecular Sieve Battery). The importers sought clearance under sub-heading No. 8419.39 of the Customs Tariff and claimed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The goods were said to be the component of the Molecular Sieve Adsorption unit for the air separation plant to produce different gases. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay, who adjudicated the matter, observed that in the Molecular Sieve Battery, no change in temperature takes place and that by virtue of adsorption, molecular sieve battery filtered the air. He classified the said goods under sub-heading No. 8421.39 of the Customs Tariff. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay observed that the gaseous impurities like moisture, carbon dioxide and acetyle...
Tag this Judgment!Kilpest (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC201Tri(Delhi)
1. The common issue involved in these three appeals filed by M/s.Kilpest India Ltd. against the common order dated 24-7-1998 is whether the process of diluting the technical grade pesticides and mixing the same with inert material amounts to manufacture.2. Shri M.P. Debnath, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the process of formulating and diluting the duty paid bought out concentrated technical grade pesticides by adding inert materials, stabilisers, solvents, emulsifier, etc. and dilute the concentrated pesticides. He further submitted that the characteristics of the technical grade pesticides and the use thereof remain the same even after the addition of stabilisers, solvents etc. that as no new product with distinct name, character or use emerges, the process carried out by them does not amount to manufacture. He relied upon the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Markfed Agro Chemicals Ltd. -1993 (68) E.L.T. 848 wherein it was held ...
Tag this Judgment!Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC423
1. Dispute in this case is regarding the classification of pouches of different types as follows :- 2. In the first instance the Assistant Collector classified the aforesaid goods under TH 7607.60. Thereafter the Revenue filed an application/appeal before the lower appellate authority under Section 35E of the Central Excises Act, 1944. Contention of Revenue was that on becoming the pouches it has become other articles of aluminium classifiable under TH 76.16 and more specifically under TSH 7616.90. It is against the said order that the appellants have come in appeal before the Tribunal.3. Learned Advocate, Shri A.K. Patnaik has submitted that the goods basically are aluminium foils except that they are in the form of pouches. The thickness of aluminium foil is not exceeding 0.2 mm. TH 76.16 he submits is not applicable because that relates to other articles of aluminium which is a residuary item. He further submits that the residuary item can be invoked only if other specific items ar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sikka Paper Mills Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC427
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order-in- original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the Kraft Paper manufactured by the respondents contains more than 75% of bagasse pulp in total quantity of pulp. Hence the respondents are entitled for Notification No. 48/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper and were availing exemption of payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 48/89-C.E. on the ground that kraft paper manufactured by them was made out of pulp containing more than 75% bagasse pulp. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of the benefit of the notification on the ground that the pulp used in the manufacture of kraft paper contains less than 75% of bagasse pulp. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order dropped the proceedings.5. The contention of the Rev...
Tag this Judgment!