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.
U.P. State Irrigation Workshop Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT468TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by the Works Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division of the Government of U.P., the matter relates to the duty liability on the parts of the Power Driven Pumps manufactured by the appellants in their Workshop and used in the repair of the Tube Wells already in operation in different parts of the State. When the proceedings were drawn against the appellants, they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 281/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986 and Notification No.64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. Both these notifications were discussed by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad who adjudicated the matter and he came to a finding that both these notifications were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. He confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 29,33,583.33 and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. Shri R.B. Mishra, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Workshop was of the State Government and they were...
B. Sons Textiles Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT465TriDel
1. These are two appeals - one filed by M/s. B. Tex Industries, Ahmedabad and the other by M/s. B. Sons Textiles Industries, Ahmedabad being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Appeal dated 14-12-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The matter relates to the classification of powerloom parts which the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that they would be classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 84.83 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the appellants had claimed classification thereof under Heading No. 84.48 of the said tariff.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for the hearing which was originally fixed for 28-7-1999 had been duly received by both the appellants on 25-6-1999 as per the acknowledgement card on record. The matter had been taken up today i.e., 29-7-1999 and we do not find any response from the appellants.There is no request for adjournment.3. As the matters are very old, in which, the Orde...
Puneet Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT649TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Puneet Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs as claimed by the appellants as scrap pipes, H.R. Sheet cuttings and plate cuttings and on which the excise duty has been paid as applicable to steel pipes, hot rolled sheets and plates. These scrap pipes, hot rolled sheet cuttings and plate cuttings were melted by the appellants to manufacture M.S. Ingots. The Addl. Collector of Central Excise, who adjudicated the matter had restricted the Modvat credit to the amount of duty chargeable on M.S. scrap.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing has been duly served on the appellants on 24-6-1999, as per the acknowledgement card on record. As it is an old matter, in which the Show Cause Notice was issued in the year 1992, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri A.K. Jain, ld. JDR.3. We find that there is no dispute that t...
Dharam Singh Dabas Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)189; 80(1999)DLT825; 1999(50)DRJ703
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1.This order disposes of CMs. 11568/98 and 1119/99 in CWP. No. 6152/98. 2. The application CM. 11568/98 has been filed by the petitioner against Respondent No. 3-The Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be called as 'Bank'), of which petitioner is an employee. He was appointed as Supervisor in the said Bank w.e.f. 1.6.67 and was confirmed w.e.f. 1.1.70. He was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor (A.O.II) on 21.12.90 and was again promoted to the post of Manager on 18.9.97. The age of retirement of the petitioner is 58 years. However, what led the petitioner to file the present application was issuance of Office Memorandum No. 25012/2/97-Estt (A) dated 13.5.98 of Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training regarding increase of retirement age of Government servants from service from 58 years to 60 years. Petitioner claims that the said notification is applicable to the employees of bank also and, therefor...
Ganges Waterproof Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)142; 1999(5)ARBLR380(Delhi); 83(2000)DLT589; 2000(2)RAJ259
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. In this suit under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Award dated 10.9.87 was filed in this Court on 14.3.1988. The Award declined to grant any part of the petitioner's claim. On 20.1.1989, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed objections (I.A. 1593/89) to the Award dated 10.9.87. The main dispute relates to the supply of EQUIPMENT CAMAOUFLAGE NETS by the petitioner to the defendants. The original Contract stipulated that 10,000 nets were to be supplied by the petitioner by 28th February, 1981 to the respondents. It is not in dispute that up to the 28th February, 1981, 4,009 nets were delivered and the payment thereforee has been made. Prior to the expiry of the period of supply, an application (Ex. P-10) for extension of time to supply the remaining nets was moved by the petitioner on 26.2.1981. There is nothing on record in writing to show that the request for extension of time is granted. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to letter d...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Engineers India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)36; 80(1999)DLT798; 1999(50)DRJ736; [1999]239ITR237(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1.At the instance of the Revenue, in respect of assessment year 1972-73, the following question has been referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the admission fee of Rs. 90,000/- paid by the assessed to M/s. Fractionization Research Inc. was admissible as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessed is a public sector under taking and derives income for supply of technical know-how to various concerns in India and abroad. It also undertakes turn key projects in India and abroad. During the previous year, ended on 31 March, 1972 and relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessed paid Rs. 90,000/- to M/s. Fractionization Research Inc. as initial admission fee for its membership and claimed it as revenue expenditure. The said organisation is ...
Ashik Abbas and Others Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT810; ILR1999Delhi151
ORDERA.K. Sikari, J.1. All these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law and were heard together. These petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since the question to be decided in these writ petitions is based on almost identical facts, for the purpose of convenience, facts of CWP.No.3464/98 are mentioned here: 3. The petitioners are holders of Diploma in Basic Training (DBT), which they have done from Jamia Millia Inslamia (JMI) University. It is the case of the petitioners, that DBT was considered at par with Elementary Training Education Training Course (ETE) being run by Govt. of NCT of Delhi/Respondent NO.1 for direct appointments as Primary School Teachers up to 1995. These Diploma Holders used to be considered for appointment as Primary Teachers in Schools run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)/Respondent No.2. Even in 1996, the candidates who had done DBT done JMI were given equal chance to apply along with those who had done ETC from District...
New Bank of India Vs. M/S Mukesh and Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT307
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. This plaintiff had instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,68,041.05 together with pendente-lite and future interest @19.5% per annum. The plaintiff had also prayed for pledged goods being attached and put to sale for realisation of the decretal amount. 2. The defendants were duly served and have filed their written statement. Vide order dated 10th April, 1985, in view of the defense taken by the defendants, the defendants were directed to file counter statement of accounts. This order was not complied with. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23rd August, 1985. However, the ex-parte order was set aside on 24th September, 1985. The following issues were framed on 4th October, 1985. 1. Whether the suit has been signed and verified by a competent person OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation OPD 3. To what rate of interest is the plaintiff entitled OPP 4. To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled 5. Relief. The following...
Modistone Limited Vs. Secretary (Labour) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)872; 80(1999)DLT803; 1999(50)DRJ788; (2000)ILLJ90Del
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 11.3.1998 issued by Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration prohibiting the continuance of lockout in respect of the concerned workmen at 3434, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi - 110 006 as well as Corporate Office at 4-7C, DDA Shopping Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi - 110 065 of M/s Modistone Ltd., the petitioner herein. 2. The writ petitioner submitted that due to disruptive activities by the union at the Central Factory, Mumbai, the business and distribution in Delhi was affected. On 22nd September, 1997, a lock-out was declared in Bombay Unit after issuing the notice dated 22.9.97. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-Company that subsequent to the lockout at Bombay Unit, the work activities were severely affected in the Delhi Unit and the management was thus compelled to declare a lockout on 29.9.1997. 4. On 11.3.1998, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order which reads as follows : 'Wherea...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Engineers India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Del)394
D.K. JAIN, J.At the instance of the Revenue, in respect of asst. yr. 1972-73, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act for the opinion of this Court :'Whether., on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the admission fee of Rs. 90,000 paid by the assessed to M/s Fractionation Research Inc. was admissible as a revenue expenditure?'2. The assessed is a public sector undertaking and derives income for supply of technical know-how to various concerns in India and abroad. It also undertakes turnkey projects in India and abroad. During the previous year, ended on 31st March, 1972, and relevant to the asst. yr. 1972-73, the assessed paid 90,000 to M/s Fractionalization Research Inc. as initial admission fee for its membership and claimed it as revenue expenditure. The said organisation is a co-operative research organisation and supplies, to its members ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »