Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 4 of about 164 results (0.019 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jupiter Textile Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT825TriDel
1. Short question involved in this appeal of Revenue is whether treatment of Parachute Fabric with 0.8% gms/litre of Sodium Hypochlorite and with 0.5% Hydrochloric Acid would amount to the process being termed as bleaching process.2. We observe from the material supplied in the appeal memo itself on the basis of definition given in the Textile Institute Manchester Dictionary that aforesaid quantity of Sodium Hypochlorite cannot be taken as 8% to treat the process as amounting to bleaching, as rightly found by the lower authority. The use of Sodium Hypochlorite is for the purpose of removing the stains of the fabric and not for the purpose of bleaching it. Removal of stains is a part of the process of scouring and not of the part of process of bleaching. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in Revenue's appeal. The impugned order is well considered judgment taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances. Hence we dismiss the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Agi Switches (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC178Tri(Delhi)
The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of electric switches and parts thereof. They were availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 (as amended). After crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs, they filed a classification list claiming the benefit of the said Notification in respect of products as mentioned above. On the face of the classification list, they made the following declaration :- 2. At this stage, we mention the contours of the brand name. The brand name is broadly in an orange colour and reproduced as below :- 3. A show cause notice dated 7-10-1996 for the period March, 1994 to 12th August, 1994, was issued to the appellants that they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 inasmuch as they are using the brand name 'AGI' of another person, namely, Ahuja General Industries (hereinafter called Ahuja). The brand name of Ahuja General Industries is produced below :- 5. In support of the appeal, learned Advocate, Shr...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT902TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, Nava Sheva.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate submitted that the applicants have obtained a letter of indent as a 100% Export Oriented Unit. The initial approval was for cotton made-up bed sheets and pillow covers. Subsequently, they also sought to include terry towels in their manufacturing activity and with that object they approached the Ministry of Industry for the requisite permission to include this item. In anticipation of the approval, they placed an order for import of machines for making terry towels. He submitted that the consignments came into two parts one landed at Bombay and another at Nhava Sheva. He said that the dispute is in respect of the consignment landed at Nhava Sheva because the consignments landed at Bombay was allowed clearance against a bond to their private bonded warehouse for producing approval from the Ministry of Industry. He...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Arora Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC741Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case an amount of Rs. 8,65,098/- towards duty drawback has been fraudulently claimed by M/s. Star Time and M/s. Elekta Electronics on semi-conductor devices-power transistors and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Sanjeev Arora who is the proprietor of M/s. Star Time and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Sanjeev Arora as a partner of Elekta Electronics. Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed upon Elekta Electronics Ltd. and Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Vikram Arora, another partner of Elekta Electronics.2. The case of the Department is that M/s. Star Time and M/s. Elekta Electronics had fraudulently claimed duty draw back by exporting rejected/ cheap/junk/non-functional semi-conductor devices at an inflated price in the guise of semi-conductor devices viz. power transistors falling under Item No. 4724(C) and 4724(D) of the Drawback schedule. Statement of Sanjeev Arora was recorded on 18-7-1995 in which he admitted that since a large investment...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Aslam Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC182Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28-7-1995, Preventive Officers of the Customs searched the business premises of the appellant and seized wrist watches of foreign origin valued at Rs. 25,100/- (CIF) and Rs. 75,350/- market value in India. In his statement given on the date of seizure the appellant admitted that he had no documentary evidence to prove the licit acquisition and possession of the imported goods. Later at the stage of adjudication, the appellant took a plea that the watches of foreign origin were purchased from passengers who had cleared them on payment of duty and the watches fixed with foreign origin movements were assembled in India. The appellant repeated the plea before the Commissioner (Appeals) also. The authorities below did not accept the contention of the appellant and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that both wrist watches and watch movements are notified items under Section 11 of the Customs Act and they are also co...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. AlIn Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC481Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. They have requested the Tribunal vide their letter dated 14th April, 1999 that the Revenue's appeal be decided on the basis of available records. They have also filed Cross-Objection which has been assigned a number as mentioned in the preamble.The respondents herein undertake manufacture of Milk Tankers and mounted the same on the duty paid Motor Vehicle chassis. Initially, they get the same classified under Tariff Heading 86.09. RT 12 returns are also accordingly finalised. Later on, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein by the Revenue on the ground that the said commodity would fall under Tariff Heading 87.04 as Motor Vehicle.The respondent's contention on the other hand in reply to the said Show cause notice was that the said goods would fall under 87.07 basing himself on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 532 (P&H). T...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. Viniyoga International Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)220; 79(1999)DLT342
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against the order dated 19th February, 1998 of learned Single Judge ordering issue of ordinary summons in the suit filed under the provisions of Order xxxvII CPC.2. We are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of without issuing notices to the defendants/respondents as summons in the suit had not been issued. The impugned order was passed only when the plaint was taken up for consideration.3. Material portion of the order under appeal reads:-'It appears that this part of the agreement is itself unconscionable and is opposed to the underlying public policy not to allow exorbitant rate of interest as is evident from Illustration (b) of Section 19A of Contract Act deeming provisions in Section 34 CPC and Section 80 Negotiable Instruments Act; Art. 39(c) of the Constitution, and lack of any precedent awarding interest over and above the rate at which moneys are lent by banks on commercial transaction... In view ...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Rani (Smt.) Vs. Sh. Rajesh Bhatt (Deceased) Through Lrs.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)29; 80(1999)DLT98; 1999(50)DRJ127; ILR1999Delhi277; 1999RLR373
ORDERDevinder Gupta, ACJ1. This appeal by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against the order dated 17th November, 1998 of a learned Single Judge by which the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. Suit was filed, inter-alia, alleging that shop No. IX/222, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi was let out to Sikandar Lal Arora, husband of the plaintiff, by Rajesh Bhatt, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants sometime in 1958 on a monthly rental of Rs.25/-. On account of Sikandar Lal Arora having suffered a paralytic stroke and his consequent indisposition the tenancy of said shop was transferred in the name of the plaintiff w.e.f. 5th December, 1997 at a monthly rental of Rs.200/- by said Rajesh Bhatt. At the time of transfer of tenancy, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,800/- to Rajesh Bhatt towards advance rent covering a period of two years from 5th December, 1997 to 4th November, 1999. After the death of Rajesh Bhat...
Tag this Judgment!itc Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Anand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)240; 80(1999)DLT82
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This application has been moved on behalf of ITC Ltd. under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and read with Section 41(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Arbitration Act'). By this application the petitioner seeks interim order of stay of any further proceedings before the Arbitrator being respondent No.5 (Mr. Datuk George K.S. Seah) pursuant to the partial award dated 24.4.1998 in ICC Arbitration No.8080/BGD/OLG till hearing and final disposal of OMP No.197/98. Respondent No.1 only has opposed this application. Respondents 2 and 3 are with the petitioner.2. The facts of the case as appear to be from the record are that a Cooperation Agreement dated 11.9.1990 was entered into between Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Battery Company Limited, ITC Limited, Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. and Shri C.L.Anand. It contained an arbitration clause. Certain disputes arose and Pradeep Anand S/o late Shri C.L. Ana...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamvir Kataria (Col.) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1999)ACC553; 2000ACJ815; 1999IIIAD(Delhi)665; AIR1999Delhi291; 79(1999)DLT683; (1999)123PLR49
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The petitioner, Col. Dharamvir Kataria, is the husband of the deceased Mrs. Mangla Kataria, Head of the Department of Statistics and Demography, National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'NIHFW'). The first respondent is the Union of India, the second respondent is the Director of NIHFW, third respondent is Director General of Works, fourth respondent is M/s.Bharat Bijlee Ltd. and the fifth respondent is M/s. A.G. Enterprises. 2. The NIHFW, a Government organisation, built two multistoreyed Blocks of Type IV Quarters and two multistoreyed Blocks of Type V Quarters in its Campus at Munirka. The construction was carried out by the Central Public Works Department (for short 'CPWD'). The residential flats were taken over by the NIHFW on June 15, 1995. Type IV and V Blocks have been provided with two numbers lifts. These lifts were installed by the fourth respondentM/s.Bharat Bijlee Limited under the supervision and direction of the CPWD. The lifts...
Tag this Judgment!