Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
National thermal Power Corporation Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)847; [1999]97CompCas930(Delhi); 80(1999)DLT544
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Admit. 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 3. These three appeals under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act); two by the National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the NTPC) and one by the Power Grid Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the PGCI), have been preferred against the orders passed by the Company Law Board (for short the Board) under section 111(7) of the Act, directing the appellants to redeem certain bonds issued by them and pay the redemtion amount along with arrears of interest directly to Bank Mutual Fund (for short the Mutual Fund), a Trust constituted under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, without making any adjustment for the redemption amount, if any, due to them from Canara Bank, the settler and the principal trustee of the said Trust. 4. Since the issues arising for consideration in all the three appeals are common, i...
Avadh Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT837TriDel
1.1 The appellants herein are manufacturers of re-rolled iron and steel products and opted to pay compounded levy in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They started paying duty on that basis from 1-9-1997. At the end of the financial year 1997-98 the appellants felt that alternative method of redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act is more beneficial to them.Therefore, they applied for redetermination of duty liability on that commodity in terms of the aforesaid provisions of Section 3A(4) of the Act i.e. redetermination of duty liability on the basis of actual production during the period 1-9-1997 to 31-3-1998. The adjudicating authority has, however, rejected the application of the appellants herein under the said Section 3A(4) on the ground that having opted for compounded levy system in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) they cannot ask for redetermination of duty liability in terms of Section 3A(4).2. Learned Advocate Shri Alok Aro...
Triveni Engg. and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT344TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the denial of Modvat credit on Eddy current drive., Techno-generator assembly, electronic controller, excitation coil and parts on the ground that the goods have no role in the process of manufacture or production of final products. The Asstt. Commissioner in the adjudication order observed that it becomes evidently clearly that the said item do not qualify the definition of capital goods as envisaged under explanation 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) as appended to Sub-Rule (1) of the Rule 57Q. It was also observed by the adjudicating authority that the said items are not by itself covered by any other clause of the explanation so appended not even in the Clause 1(d) which inter alia covers other heading of Chapter 85. The adjudicating authority relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Limited -1997 (89) E.L.T. 84. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appea...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd., New Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)511; (2000)161CTR(Del)501; 81(1999)DLT529; [1999]239ITR343(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the following questions for the opinion of this Court: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to assess the interest from securities on specified dates basis on which the interest was payable and not on accrual basis? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the equipments used in the assessor's business such as counters, steel equipments, electric fitting, calculating machines and cooling equipments are to be treated as a plant and machinery under section 32(1)(ii) and Section 33 for the purpose of grant of depreciation and development rebate respectively? 2.Briefly stated, the material facts are that in the original return the assessed bank declared income fro...
Harvinder Kaur (Smt.) Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)531
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as TGT in SS Khalsa Sr. Secondary School (Chakwal), Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi, has sought the relief of quashing the promotion of the fourth respondent as PGT w.e.f. 12.2.1997 as per the decision of the Management Committee in its meeting held on 12.2.1997.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated briefly in the following terms: In September, 1978, the petitioner was appointed as TGT in the third respondent school. One Mr. Bhupinder Singh, who was working as PGT (History) in the school, retired on the 30th of April, 1996 on his attaining the age of 60 years. thereforee, the post PGT (History) fell vacant on the 30th of April, 1996. On the retirement of Mr. Bhupinder Singh, the Department of Education, i.e., the second respondent gave clearance to the Management of the School to hold DPC to fill up the post of PGT (History). The DPC of the School met on the 1st of July, 1996 and again on the 15th ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jalpac India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT505TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 is available to Polyester/Polypropylene plastic film scrap.2. Shri A.M. Tilak, learned DR, submitted that the Respondents, M/s.Jalpac India Ltd. manufacture BOPP film. The Assistant Commissioner denied them the exemption to scrap under Notification No. 14/92 (Sl.No. 19) holding that waste, pairing and scrap had arisen during the process of finishing the metalised / lacquered polyester film; that waste etc. was generated in the form of cutting and trimmings of film on which appropriate duty of excise had not been paid and as such the condition of the Notification was not satisfied. However, Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order by the Assistant Collector. The learned DR further submitted that the Respondents had availed of the Modvat credit of duty paid on plastic granules out of which BOPP film was manufactured; that uncut/untrimmed polyester film...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhupindra Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT255TriDel
1. Commissioner of/Central Excise the order of the Commis-sioner(Appeals) on the question of admissibility of Modvat credit on distribution Transformers as capital goods.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of kraft media paper arid are availing Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture 6f craft paper. A scrutiny of the documents filed by the assessee revealed that an item was described as distribution Transformer on which the respondent herein elaimed Modvat credit. The Department alleged that Modvat credit was not adinissible on distribution transformers. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be denied on distribution transformers. The assessee submitted that distribution transformer is used for controlling the voltage in the system and since voltage control helps in the production of Kraft paper, therefore, this is a product to be treat...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Keti Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT689TriDel
1. These three appeals have been referred to this Larger Bench vide Misc. Order No. 37/99-C on the following points :- "Whether Spent Sulphuric Acid (Dilute Sulphuric Acid) was a product distinct from Sulphuric Acid classifiable under Heading 28.07 and was required to be classified as excisable product under Heading 38.23? Consequently, whether the Modvat credit was rightly claimable in such cases where input is Sulphuric Acid and Spent Sulphuric Acid is a By-product of the process involved? Sulphuric Acid and Dilute Sulphuric Acid were essentially the same products classifiable as such under 28.07 and in the process in which the later is simply generated from the former it is required to be considered as unmanufactured product; and consequently no duty is leviable and no question of Modvat arises." 2. The facts leading to the above reference are, in brief, that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Acid Slury and Detergent Powder and one of the raw materials used by them ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1146TriDel
1. The Department has filed the captioned appeal on the ground that benefit of Notification No. 51/78, dated 1-3-78 has wrongly been extended to the Respondents herein. The facts of the case in brief are that U.P. State Electricity Board was using power from the main grid for starting their auxiliary unit and once the auxiliary units start functioning the power from the main grid was switched off and the power generated by the auxiliary units was used for running the auxiliary units and for other purposes. The department alleged that the auxiliary units were only for the purposes of transmission and distribution of electricity and were not generating stations as required in the provisions to the aforesaid Notification. They, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded in respect of electricity consumed in the auxiliary stations. In reply to the show cause notice, Chief Engineer of U.P. State Electricity B...
Deepak Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC622Tri(Delhi)
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise concerned vide its impugned order has confirmed the duty liability of Ks. 30 lakhs against the appellant.The present Stay Petition is for staying the recovery of duty liability. The duty liability is for the period April, 1998 to September, 1998. Further this duty liability has been confirmed by the Commissioner on the basis of actual capacity of the furnace at 9,600 M.T. vide his order dated 26-3-1998 which has since been set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A/554-58/1998, dated 3-7-1998 [1999 (105) E.L.T. 704 (Tribunal)]. By the said Order the Commissioner was asked to redetermine the duty liability in terms of Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner has not accepted the application Under Section 3A(4) ibid on the ground that after having opted for the compounded levy scheme in terms of 96 ZO the application of Section 3A(4) cannot be resorted to. It is clear, submits the ld.Advocate, that the said Order also c...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »