Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 10 of about 164 results (0.018 seconds)Swadeshi Detergents Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC143
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-inAppeal No. 204-CE/MRP/97 dated 11.2.97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate submitted that the appellant is a job worker. Processing of goods was undertaken by the assessee with reference to the raw materials supplied by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. He said that while declaring the price, the assessee has adopted the price of goods sold by M/s. Godrej Soaps and claiming certain deductions. The Assistant Commissioner who adjudicated the proceedings has allowed some deductions but disallowed some other deductions as claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order the party has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) without going into issue whether that deductions as claimed by the assessee are permissible or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) altogether has had gone into new issue by making out a new case different from t...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC387Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals have been referred to this Larger Bench vide separate reference orders. In all the cases, the issue involved is eligibility or otherwise to the benefit of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The stand of the revenue is that the items in dispute namely welding electrodes, wires and cables etc. are not capital goods within the meaning of the explanation to Rule 57Q which covers goods used only in production, processing or bringing about any change in substance for manufacture of the final product and that the goods in question are not such goods. The Revenue is also of the view that the amendment in Rule 57Q which was made on 16-3-1995 is prospective and not retrospective in operation.3. In the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd., Modvat credit has been denied on power cables and capacitors; the period of dispute is March 1994 to October 1994. This case has been referred to the Larger Bench by Misc.Order No. 52/98, dated 27-1-1998 1998 (100) E.L...
Tag this Judgment!Aluminium Powder Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC954Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Aluminium Powder Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. APCL')/ the matter relates to the duty liability in respect of the diluted aluminium paint consumed captively to paint empty drums which were used subsequently for packing metal powder. M/s.APCL were preparing aluminium paint by mixing non-duty paid aluminium powder with the turpentine and varnish and the prepared paint was used captively for coating drums used for packing of aluminium powder within the factory itself. In the show cause notice dated 12-4-1991, the Central Excise Duty of Rs. 4,030.36 in respect of aluminium powder and of Rs. 10,843.20 in respect of aluminium paint was demanded. The appellants agreed to pay the central excise duty due on aluminium powder. With regard to the diluted aluminium paint, it was contended that it could not be marketed and had a very short shelf life. It was their plea that such prepared diluted aluminium paint was not dutiable.The Addl. Collector of Cen...
Tag this Judgment!inalsa Appliances Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC752Tri(Delhi)
1. Credit has been denied in the instant case on timing belt, an input in the manufacture of electric motors, on the ground that the imported consignment described the item as Sewing Motor Belts as against the 57G declaration as timing belt. The classification was also different from the classification filed under the declaration, the declaration having mentioned the classification of Sub-Heading 4010.90 and the Sub-Heading for payment of countervailing duty being 3926.90. A penalty of Rs. 3,000/- has been imposed also.2. Arguing the appeal for admission, learned Advocate, Shri P. Sharma submits that that the input in question is the declared product remains admitted in the impugned order itself. He refers to para 3 on the first page of the order which is reproduced below: Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of electric motors and are availing credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A. Vide their declaration dated 9.12.1993. one of the inputs ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Timken Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC956Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. In this case, the issue is of classification of rollers imported by the appellants. The appellants claimed the classification under Tariff Heading 7326.19 of the Customs Tariff as other articles of iron or steel forged or stamped, but not further worked. Whereas the Revenue classified the goods under Tariff Heading 8482.99 as other parts of ball or roller bearings.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the goods imported by the appellants were nothing but semi-finished green rollers which are not capable of being used as such as part of roller bearings. The green rollers imported by the appellants, had to undergo processes at the factory of the appellants before they could be used as part of roller bearings. As such, the imported goods cannot be identified as parts of roller bearings as they did not have the essential characteristics o...
Tag this Judgment!Action Const. Equipment P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Escorts Const. Equipment ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)464; 79(1999)DLT300
ORDERDevinder Gupta, ACJ.1. Against the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.10.1998 in I.A.Nos.2460/98 and 4638/98 in civil Suit No.533/98, appeal has been preferred by the defendants appellants, which is pending consideration.2. Learned Single Judge while staying the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, preferred by respondents 1 and 2 till the disposal of Suit No.73/97 pending in the court of Subordinate Judge, 1st Jamshedpur proceeded to dispose of the application of respondents 1 and 2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and of the appellants filed under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. thereby restraining the defendants appellants from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale Pick-N-Carry Mobile cranes that are substantial imitation or reproduction of the industrial drawings of the plaintiffs or from using in any other manner whatsoever the technical knowhow, specifications or drawings of the plaintiffs till disposal of the suit.3. On 23.10.199...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan and Others Vs. Shri Jagdeep Rai and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)529; 79(1999)DLT305; 1999(49)DRJ602
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In the present suit instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants an application has been filed by defendant No.4 seeking for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Another application has been filed by some applicants seeking for their impleadment in the suit. The said applications have been registered as I.A.No. 3708/1995 and I.A. No.10333/1998. Since an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the said application and by this order I propose to dispose of the same. 2. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants No.1 to 4 and have sought for an injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. In paragraph 23 of the plaint it is stated that defendant No.4 has been imp leaded as a formal party and has claimed no relief as against the said defendant....
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Mohan Vadhera Vs. Jagdish Rai Vadhera and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT80
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the order dated 20th September, 1995 of a Single Judge whereby in is No. 15125/1991 under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC Subash Mohan Vadhera, respondent No. 2 was allowed to be imp leaded as a defendant in the suit. 2. Suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff against his father Jagdish Rai Vadhera, defendant-respondent No. 1, inter alia, alleging that the freehold plot of land measuring 413.3 sq. yards with a house built thereon bearing No. B-16 (New 16/16) at Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and defendant for a total consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1971 from Rajinder Parshad & others. Half of the amount of the sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff and of this own resources/earnings. Parties to the suit are staying in the said house. Although both the parties have separate kitchen yet due to temperamental differences between th...
Tag this Judgment!Brijesh Kumari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ601
N.G. Nandi, J.1. Heard. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a young girl aged 17 years and happened to be sister-in-law (sister of the husband).2. According to the FIR, petitioner/accused is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 307/498A/34 IPC converted into Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC. In the submission of Mr. Butalia, learned App, offence allegedly committed is under Section 302 IPC.3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also that the petitioner is a girl aged about 17 years and in view of the decisions reported in 1991 Cri. L.J. 1052, and in view of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 437 Cr. P.C. I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favor of the petitioner.4. On the petitioner/accused furnishing a surety for the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a personal bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. She is ordered to be rel...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Kapoor (Lt. Col.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)623; AIR1999Delhi300; [2001]103CompCas924(Delhi); 80(1999)DLT111; 1999(50)DRJ462; (1999)123PLR21
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. Respondent No. 3 - H.B. Portfolio Leasing Limited has filed this application under Section 151 CPC for modification of that part of the order dated 25th September, 1998 by which respondent No.3 was directed to pay further interest at the rate of 14% till 31st October, 1998 on the amount of interest on allotment money from 26th March, 1995 till 30th April, 1995. 2. It is, inter alia, alleged that respondent No. 3 came out with a Public issue of 1,60,000 Fully Convertible Debentures and Rights Issue of 1,74,02,424 Fully Convertible Debentures of Rs. 65/- each in November/December 1994. As per the terms of Prospectus and Letter of Offer a sum of Rs. 20/- per debenture was payable on application while further sum of Rs. 45/- per debenture was payable on allotment. Pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors, respondent No. 3 called upon the allottees to make the payment of Call money of Rs. 45/- per debenture by 25th March, 1995. It is further stated that beca...
Tag this Judgment!