Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 12 of about 243 results (0.022 seconds)Gobinder Singh Vs. Pritam Singh (Wg. Cdr.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)960; 79(1999)DLT711; 1999(50)DRJ177
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application registered as I.A. No. 2685/1995 filed by the plaintiff praying for striking out the averments made in the written statement, which is in the nature of complete departure from the original statements. 2. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking for a decree for partition and declaration. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant No. 4 now arrayed as defendant No.3 by filing a written statement on 18.3.1982 to which a replication was also filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in the suit on 22.11.1985 and additional issues were also framed on 30.1.1986. Under the aforesaid order dated 30.1.1986 the plaintiff was directed to file an amended plaint and also to make up the deficiency of the Court fee. The said order records the undertaking of the learned Counsel of the plaintiff to amend the plaint and seek the relief of possession and pay ad valorem Court fee. 3. Pur...
Tag this Judgment!Galaxy International Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT733TriDel
1. In support of the appeal filed by the party, Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Counsel, drew our attention to the miscellaneous application filed by him in bringing additional evidence on record.2. Shri Asthana submits that issue relates to determination of value of second hand car. The appellant filed a claim for refund contesting the valuation of the car. The claim was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the authorities below have relied upon the invoice issued by M/s. Crown Motors Limited who are dealers of Toyota. The party has claimed certain deduction from the invoice value. One of the deductions claimed was registration tax of Hong Kong Dollars 32,531/-. He said that this is an important piece of evidence but the same could not be produced before the authorities below since the same was obtained from the concerned Transport Department Licensing Division, Hong Kong on 9-1-1995 i.e., subsequent to the passing of the order. He also subm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nicco Batteries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1022TriDel
1. This is second appeal of the Commissioner. The impugned order had allowed different discount for sales in U.P. and other parts of the country, the reason being that sales in U.P. were exempted from sales-tax. The appeal of the Revenue seems to contend that U.P. price should be the basis for assessment of all the clearances, it being ex-factory price.2. Learned Counsel Shri Swaminathan submits for the respondents that the regional discounts are permissible under law. The respondents were, therefore, right in paying duty at a higher price for sales in U.P.(these sales being exempted from sales tax) and at lower value in respect of sales to other regions.3. Shri S.P. Rao, learned DR. He reiterates the submissions in the appeal.4. We have carefully perused the record and considered the submissions of both the sides. It is settled law that regional discounts are permissible while fixing assessable value of manufactured goods. The orders of the lower authorities being in confirmity with ...
Tag this Judgment!Angle French Textiles Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT134TriDel
1. C/COD/28-29/97-B2 are filed by the applicants/appellants to condone delay in filing the supplementary appeals. The delay is condoned in filing appeals since the main appeal was in time, as per practice of the Tribunal.2. The appellants are, true to their name, manufacturer of textiles.They imported in 1988 shuttleless looms under a contract from Russia.The dispute in the present appeal is about the rate of duty to be applied in respect of the accessories imported along with the machines.The relevant Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 are as under:- "2. Accessories of and spare parts and maintenance or repairing implements for, any article, when imported along with that article shall be chargeable at the same rate of duty as that article, if the proper officer is satisfied that in the ordinary course of trade - (i) such accessories, parts and implements are compulsorily supplied along with that article; and (ii) no separate charge is made for such supply, their price being included...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Fans (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC438
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'RAVI' brand electrical fans classifiable under sub-heading 8414.20. The appellants have claimed certain deductions. During the proceedings, the Assistant Director (Cost) required a report from C.A. to support the claim of the party. Pendency of the certificate from the C.A., the Assistant Collector has passed an order ignoring the request of the party to keep the matter in abeyance.2. Shri Swaminathan, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants submitted that it was ordered by the department to get a certificate from the Cost Accountant and in spite of the request made by the party as per their letter dated 25-3-1996 to wait the report of the Cost Accountant, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order which is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. He submits that Cost Accountant has issued a certificate on 27-3-1996 and the same was not considered. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have remanded the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmi Chand Vs. Secy. (Labour) Govt. of National Capital Territory of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)49; 80(1999)DLT316
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1.The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.2 as Mali on 1st April, 1972 and performed the duties of Garden Chawdhary. On 9th April 1987 the petitioner was transferred from Subhash Nagar to Khyala Village. The petitioner appeared in the trade test for the post of Garden Chowdhary and was declared successful. In 1994 he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer for regularization of his services. Respondent No.1 vide its order dated 16th June, 1995 refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of refusal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 16th June 1995 passed by respondent No.1, Secretary (Labour), Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, refusing the reference of the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. The impugned order gives the following reasons for refusing to make a reference: '...
Tag this Judgment!Durgeshwari Devi Vs. International Development Research Centre
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)926; 79(1999)DLT750; 1999(50)DRJ67
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree for possession in respect of the suit premises bearing No.11, Jor Bagh, New Delhi and also for a decree for a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs on account of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of the suit premises from 1.4.1997 to 30.5.97 being the quantified damages agreed to between the parties and also for a decree for payment of damages for Rs.15,000/-per day beyond 30th May, 1997 till the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and for pendente lite and furture interest. 2. Along with the suit an interim application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39,Rules 1 and 2, CPC on which an ad interim ex parte injunction was granted on 30th May, 1997 restraining the defendant from subletting, assigning or otherwise parting with possession of the whole or part of the premises in question or in any manner creating any third party right therein, until further orders. 3. The defendant e...
Tag this Judgment!Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC666Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Pyrene Rai Metal Treatment Ltd. against a common order dated 25-2-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai relating to the classification of the Pyroclean Range of products manufactured by them.2.1. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants filed a classification list No. 252/88, dated 6-12-1988 in respect of 22 products classifying them as 'other inorganic compound' under Heading No. 28.51 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. On the basis of the test report of product 'Pyroclean-17', the Assistant Collector classified the product ufider sub-heading 3402.90 as cleaning preparations. He also classified other similar products with similar function of same group under sub-heading 3402.90 of CETA. On appeal by them, the Collector (Appeals) under order dated 14-1-1992, confirmed the classification of Pyroclean-17 under sub-heading 3402.90. However, in respect of other products, he ordered that the result of Proclean 17 could ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT725TriDel
1. All these appeals relate to valuation of generating sets manufactured by M/s. Birla Yamaha Ltd. 2. Arguing the appeals of M/s. Birla Yamaha Ltd., learned Counsel Shri V. Sridharan submits that their appeals are with regard to ordering the addition of Rs. 70.00 per generating set towards advertisement cost in their assessable value. He submitted that during the relevant period no joint publicity was being undertaken by Birla Yamaha Ltd. and their dealers. The advertisement costs of both were separate and no commission was allowed by the manufacturer to the dealer on the condition that expenses will be incurred for advertisement. He submits that under these facts there was no justification for ordering any addition to the assessable value on account of advertisement charges.3. Appeal of the Revenue relates to non-inclusion of free service charges in the assessable value. Shri Shiv Kumar, learned JDR reiterated the contentions in the appeal.4. In reply learned Counsel Shri Sridharan s...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Ji Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT533TriDel
1. The appeals of M/s. Shah Ji Steels, M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P) Limited and M/s. Raman Ispat (P) Limited pertain to common issue holding that if the assessee has opted for availing concessional rate of duty under Rule 96ZO(3)/ he cannot claim concession of Sub-section 4 of Section 3A. In the appeal of M/s. Raman Ispat (P) Limited, we find that the appeal had come up before Tribunal earlier and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for allowing them the benefit of Sub-section 4 of Section 3A. We note that all three appeals have been decided by the Commissioner holding that if the assessee had opted for assessment under Rule 96ZO(3), they were not entitled to claim the benefit of Sub-section 4 of Section 3A 3. The appellants contended that the assessees had option even if they had opted for levy of duty under Rule 96ZO(3) to apply for the benefit of Sub-section 4 of Section 3A if their production was less. The appellants submitted that similar issue had come up before th...
Tag this Judgment!