Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 21 of about 243 results (0.021 seconds)Delhi Bottling Company Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC884Tri(Delhi)
1. These are 2 appeals against confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants manufacture aerated waters and flavoured syrup. They are also availing the facility of modvat scheme. They filed modvat declaration under Rule 57G wherein the plastics shells, glass bottles and crown corks had been declared as packaging materials. The department observed that under Sub-clause (iii) of exclusion clause under Explanation to Rule 57A, modvat credit is not permissible in respect of those packing materials, cost of which is not included or had not been included in the preceding financial year in the assessable value of the final product. It was further observed that consequent upon a change from the specific rate to Ad valorem rate of duty, the appellants have filed a PL in Part I w.e.f. 1.3.1994 in respect of aerated waters wherein the nature of packing is shown of durable and returnable as per trade practice.Column 6 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Manisha Printers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC994Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue involving the issue whether the benefit to Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 7-4-1976 is available to the goods described as "both sides coated multilayered pasted art board".2. When the matters were called, none of the Respondents were present in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard ld. DR who submitted that Notification No. 341/76-Cus. provided a concessional rate of duty of paper and paper board specifically mentioned in Sl. No. 98 of the table annexed to the Notification. The benefit of Notification was available, inter alia, to multilayered paper board or paste board. He, further, submitted that the goods imported by the Respondents were undisputedly coated on both sides. The Notification does not mention that the multilayered paper board would be coated; that coating is a process subsequent to coming into existence of multilayered paper board and if the intention of the law maker was to extend the benefit to coated multi-layered b...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chander Gupta and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)277
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a contract on October 11, 1989 whereby the petitioner was required to carry out the work of development of parks and RSP at Paschim Puri, Pocket GH-14, Zone G-17. It is not disputed on both sides that the work was executed by the petitioner and the payment on account of the same under the final bill prepared by the respondent was made to the petitioner. The payment was received by the petitioner without demur. Subsequently, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 1,191,169.28 from the respondent along with interest, etc. The respondent however, disputed the claim of the petitioner. The dispute with regard to the above said sum of money and interest was referred to the arbitration of respondent No.2, Shri R.J. Bakhru, in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on April 9, 1991 and made his award on August 28, 1992. The arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,91,169/- in favor of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Globus Agronics Limited Vs. Banque National De Paris and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)780; 79(1999)DLT500; 1999(50)DRJ212; (1999)122PLR42
ORDERS.K.Mahajan, J.1. The plaintiff filed the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.3,50,84,500/- on the allegations that it had contracted to sell 'Fermentation Ethanol' made from Molasses to an overseas party named M/s Kolmar PetroChemicals AG, Switzerland. Under the agreement entered into between them on 29.9.1997 and the buyer was to provide a Documentary Irrevocable Letter of Credit payable at sight at the counters of an Indian bank against presentation of documents for payment of price of goods under the said contract. On the request of the buyer and in terms of the agreement between the parties defendant no.2 as banker of the buyer issued a confirmed Letter of Credit in favor of the plaintiff envisaging payment through defendant no.1 bank at its counter in Delhi. The value of the Letter of Credit was US$ 7,40,000/- with unit sale price as US$ 370/- per MT. The terms of irrevocable Letter of Credit were stated to have been amended by issue of conf...
Tag this Judgment!Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bharat Carpets Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)749; [2001]103CompCas552(Delhi); 79(1999)DLT441; 1999(49)DRJ637
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. This application, by M/s. Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd., the auction purchaser of the land, building, plant and machinery belonging to M/s Bharat Carpets Limited, the company in liquidation, inter alia, seeks setting aside of sale of the said assets in favor of the applicant company and refund of the entire amount deposited by the applicant, pursuant to order dated 17 December, 1996, with the Official Liquidator together with interest, damages and costs. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Official Liquidator on 21 September, 1996, for sale of assets of the company in liquidation, including leasehold land measuring 25222 sq.yds approximately and freehold land measuring 15000 sq. yds approximately, on 'as is where is basis', three parties, including the applicant, gave their bids but subsequently, vide order dated 13 December, 1996, another party namely, S. Bhupinder Singh was also permitted to participate in the bidding. Keeping in view the area of the...
Tag this Judgment!Chawla Techno Construct Limited Vs. the Embassy of Italy
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)863; 79(1999)DLT531; ILR1999Delhi385
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties in relation to the construction of the Italian Embassy Building Complex, including the residence of the Ambassador, by the petitioner, the same were referred to the arbitration of Justice Dalip K.Kapur (Retired Chief Justice of this Court). Before the arbitrator, the petitioner raised the question of the validity of the arbitrator's appointment and on 23rd October, 1994 the arbitrator after giving opportunity to the parties to file written submissions held that it was only after the written submissions were filed before him that he would decide whether oral hearing was necessary on the question of the validity of his appointment. In the meantime, the period of four months for making and publishing the award expired and an application being O.M.P.No.80/95 was, thereforee, filed in this Court for extension of time to enable the arbitrator to make and publish his award. The application was resisted by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Singh Vs. Godran Rubber Plastic Industries
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)817; 79(1999)DLT513
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This application has been moved under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. In the application it is averred that the plaintiff adopted and conceived the design of footwear popularly known as Article No. 002 in the year 1989 and has been continuously using the same since then up to the present time. The plaintiff is thus keen to amend by incorporating the aforesaid, his date of adoption and user, exclusive rights, his sale figures. The plaintiff moved the following amendment to be carried out in the plaint:'4.A. The plaintiff has exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the said article of footwear having the design, shape and surface pattern and distinctive features involved in the said design of footwear and the plaintiff also enjoys copyright in the said design on account of its prior adoption, senior and continuous user thereof since 1989. The plaintiff is also the proprietor of the said design on account of its prior and senior adoption and continuous...
Tag this Judgment!The Embassy of Italy Vs. Chawla Techno Construct Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT540; 1999(49)DRJ626
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The application is opposed by the respondent mainly on the very grounds on which the respondent has sought the revocation of authority of the Arbitrator in O.M.P. No. 237/97. For the reasons given in my order dismissing the petition of the respondent under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act being O.M.P. No. 237/97, I am of the opinion that no ground whatsoever has been made out for opposing the extension of time to enable the Arbitrator to proceed further in the matter.2. Accordingly, allowing the application, I extend the time to enable the Arbitrator to make and publish his award by four months from the date of this order. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Pure Drinks Ltd. and anr. Vs. Project Investment P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ627
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The copy of the order dated 26.4.1999 passed by the learned Division Bench has been brought to my notice. By the said order, the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench have desired this Court to dispose of LA. No. 6937/94. thereforee, I proceed to decide this application in Suit No. 2311 of 1993. 2. In I.A. No. 6937/94, defendant No. 6 has prayed that the orders passed by this Court on 9.5.1994 and 20.5.1994 be set aside or be kept in abeyance/stayed to the extent of directing the applicant/defendant No. 6 to put the amounts of the instruments in fixed deposits till the disposal of the suit. 3. By the order dated 9.5.1994, this Court directed that amount lying with the Standard and Chartered Bank be kept in fixed deposits for a period of 90 days. This order was further clarified by the subsequent order of 20.5.1994 in which the Court observed that the order dated 9.5.1994 is clarified only to the extent that pending the reply and the further orders, the Standard Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Rydertrac Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC156
1. The brief facts of the case are that the officers of the DRI seized 107 second-hand machines, out of which 42 machines had not yet been cleared (while the remaining 65 machines had already been cleared) and were seized from the business premises of Kulbir Singh, Partner of M/s.Rydertrac Exports (34 machines from business premises at Wazirpur Industrial Area were seized on 7-9-1989, while 31 such machines were seized from another business premises in Wazirpur Industrial Area on 5-10-1989). The charge of the Department was that the importer did not have an industrial unit and was not an actual user and also did not possess valid import licence for the import of 42 machines sought to be imported, but only producted additional licences which did not cover the import. It was alleged that the importer had failed to produce any evidence for import of 34 second-hand machines seized on 7-9-1989, while in respect of 31 machines seized on 5-10-1989, the importer was able to produce the Bill o...
Tag this Judgment!