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.
East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT654TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants'), the issue for our consideration is, whether the appellants were eligible for the benefit of exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No.201/87-C.E., dated 3-9-1987 in respect of the printing frames (classifiable under Heading No. 84.42 of the Central Excise Tariff) used in another unit M/s. East India Exclusive Fabrics Ltd. Under Notification No. 201/87-C.E. printing frames classifiable under Heading No. 84.42 of the Central Excise Tariff when used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer in the printing of textile fabrics were exempt from duty. The plea of the appellants had been that they had entered into a lease agreement with M/s. East India Exclusive Fabrics Ltd. and that the latter had agreed to grant the lease of the printing tables and other equipment for their exclusive use. They had thus argued that M/...
Babu Textiles Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT489TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Babu Textiles Industries, the matter relates to the classification of 2. The appellants had sought classification of these parts under Heading No. 84.48 of the Tariff as parts of the powerlooms. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad held that as they were separately and specifically described under Heading No. 84.43 of the Tariff and by virtue of Section Note 2(a) under Section XVI of the Tariff, they were to be classified under their specific Tariff 84.83 of the Tariff.3. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been duly served on the appellant on 25-6-1999 as per acknowledgement card on record. There is no response.There is no request for any adjournment. As it is an old matter filed in years 1991-1992, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri R.D. Negi, SDR.4. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of powerloom machinery and parts thereof. ...
B.S.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT688TriDel
1. When the case was called, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeals are taken up in the absence of the appellants.2. In both the appeals, the issue is in respect of Modvat credit on the capital goods therefore, they are being taken up together.3. The appellants filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeal where the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the following items as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules : 4. Heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned DR submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (32) RLT 379, decided the issue in respect of Modvat credit on capital goods after considering the scope of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In the present case on various items, the benefit of Modvat credit as 'capital goods' was denied to the appellants. We find in the impugned order, the role of each item for producing or processing of goods...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Agrew Steel Mfg. P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC309Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the classification of aluminium headings. The respondents are manufacturers of steel windows door frames falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.The Department by show cause notice dated 27-9-1991 called upon the respondents to show cause as to why excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,190.90 should not be recovered from them as duty payable for aluminum headings cleared along with steel windows and frames. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector by order-in-original dated 10-2-1992 on the ground that these aluminium headings were separate and different from the articles manufactured and supplied by the appellants to the customers. He also held that the aluminium headings were neither supplied as components nor as part and parcel of window frames and the said aluminium headings were supplied only as per specific requirement from the customers. He therefore, held that aluminium headings could not be taken as articles fall...
Harish Textile Engineerings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC163Tri(Delhi)
1. All the three appeals involves the common question of law.Therefore, these are being taken together for final disposal.2. In this case the issue is classification and excisability of Nylon Screen Sleeves.3. The appellant filed Appeal No. E/4602/93-C in the Order-in-Original, dated 6-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise held that Nylon Screen Sleeves manufactured by the appellants are marketable and classifiable under Chapter 37 of the Central Excise Tariff.4. In Appeal No. E/1176/94-C filed by the appellant against the Or-der-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise dated 21-2-1994, in the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the nylon screen sleeves do not fall under Chapter 37 of Central Excise and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority on the aspect of marketability of nylon screen sleeves. The Revenue also filed Appeal No. E/1169/94-C against the same impugned order with the prayer that the goods in question are classifiable...
Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)165; 1999CriLJ4021; 81(1999)DLT55; II(1999)DMC483; 1999(50)DRJ795; ILR1999Delhi138
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.The short question is: whether the second proviso to Section 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages the grant of bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction over the place of arrest to a person arrested by the police without warrant? 2. A few facts must be narrated and the anatomy of the Chapters V and VI of the Code projected at this stage, so that a hang of the controversy may be got and its just resolution sought. On a FIR lodged by the petitioner's wife Smt. Smita Chaudhary, a case under Sections 498-A/406 IPC was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi. In the course of the investigation that followed, the petitioner was arrested by the Delhi Police in Moradabad and was produced on the same day before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for remand. At the time of arrest, the petitioner was admitted in the Hospital at Moradabad. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief ...
Jai Chand Sawhney Vs. D.D.A. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)232; 83(2000)DLT172
ORDERC.C.P. 272/99.1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed and/or violated the undertaking given in the Court of Shri G.P. Thareja in Suit No. 379/1976. A copy of the said order is placed on record. 2. I have been taken through the said judgment which contains the aforesaid undertaking given by the respondents. The undertaking was to the effect that the petitioner, who was the plaintiff therein, would not be evicted from the suit property, save and except by due process of law. In view of the aforesaid undertaking given by the counsel for the espondents before the Court, the Court also ordered that the defendant/respondents would be bound by the aforesaid statement. The said suit was dismissed by the order dated 5.7.1978, after recording the aforesaid undertaking of the counsel for the respondent. 3. It is alleged in this petition that in willful violation and disobedience of the aforesaid undertaking giv...
Kanchan Kapoor Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)235; 83(2000)DLT175; 2000(56)DRJ90
ORDERC.M. No. 2070/99 and L.P.A. NO. 289/991. This Appeal is against the Order dated 19th July, 1999 by which the Writ Petition has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of playing a fraud on the Court as well as the opposite party. It is held that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as there was deliberate concealment with a view to misleading the Court. A notice dated 9th June, 1997 issued by the Delhi Development Authority to the petitioner was suppressed. It was claimed that such a notice was never received. This false claim was made because if it was shown that such a Notice was issued, then the petitioner would have had no case. The appellant got caught out because it was shown to the court that that Notice had been replied to by the Appellant by a letter dated 30th September, 1997.2. Before us also the Appellant is not being honest. It is even now being submitted that no Notice dated 9th June, 1997 had been received. It is...
Hari Sharma Vs. Mr. Amarjit Singh Ramana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)794; 80(1999)DLT611; 1999(50)DRJ781; ILR1999Delhi129; 1999RLR427
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the petition on the ground of Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the Addl. Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner has failed to made out a case under proviso (h) of Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the appellant/landlord has filed this second appeal.2. Respondent is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No. 81, Pashchmi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi having five bed rooms, drawing room and dining room on a plot of land admeasuring 800 sq. yards. Premises were let out to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month by a registered lease-deed dated 1.4.1970 for a period of three years for residential purposes with option for another two years. Lease was finally expired in the end of March, 1975 by efflux of time.3. Present eviction petition was filed in the year 1985. The ground taken was that the wife of the tenant Smt. Sudesh Ramana has built a very commodi...
Capricorn One and anr. Vs. Shri Raghbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)810; 80(1999)DLT639; 1999(50)DRJ626
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1.This is an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The later half of this Rule makes it mandatory for allowing that all amendments necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions has laid down that amendments to pleadings should be liberally granted wherever justice so required. Undoubtedly, in the context of permitting amendments to side can be compensated by the panacea of costs. Where, however, the proposed amendment would introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent case, costs would not be an appropriate recompense and, hence the amendment of this nature ought not to be allowed. 2. By this application the plaintiff prays, apart from other incidental changes, for the deletion of the words 'out of Khasra No. 207 (min) 'and substitution in its place of the words 'bearing (survey) plot No. Old F-216 new ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »