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.
Jindal Solvent Extractions Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT159TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants' appeal if accepted, will amount to unjust enrichment.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Solvent Extraction. They manufacture Solvent Extracted oil by solvent method from Rice Bran. The appellants were paying CESS in terms of the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983. The Department held that CESS was payable on the oil manufactured by the appellants. The appellants paid the CESS and filed a refund claim. The refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that the incidence of CESS was not borne by the appellant but was passed on to the customers and therefore, in case the refund was sanctioned it will amount to unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He, therefore, rejected the refund claim.The appellant went in appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who while passing the Order-in-Appeal obse...
Cipta Coated Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT490TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Cipta Coated Steels Ltd. is whether penalty is imposable on them under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Pragyan Sharma, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Magadh Enterprises had fabricated and done the structural work in their premises. Though the duty has been demanded from Magadh Enterprises besides imposing penalty on them, the fabrication of columns, trusses, purlins and bracing etc. are not excisable products as held in the case of Elecon Engineering v. C.C.E. 1999 (107) E.L.T. 337. He further submitted that for imposing penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules the knowledge of the appellant has to be proved by the Department which has not been done by adducing any evidence. The mens rea on their part is totally absent in the present matter and as such penalty cannot be imposed on them. He drew our attention to his reply to the show cause notice in which it was clearly contended by them that the mens rea...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Kunaksh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)478; 2000(52)DRJ722
ORDERVijendra Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Judge, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision. The short controversy involved in this petition is that suit was filed on 1st August, 1996 with deficient Court fee of Rs.1.50/- which was affixed on the plaint. On 2nd August, 1996 when the suit came in the Court, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was thereafter listed on 9th August, 1996. On 9th August, 1996 following order was passed; 'Present-counsel for the plaintiff. Deficient court fee and documents filed. Suit be checked up and registered. Issue notice to defendants on process fee and registered cover for 23rd September,1996.' 2. Although later on as the defendants did not appear inspire in service, they were proceeded ex-parte on 6th November,1996. 3. On 19th December, the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that when the suit was originally filed on 1st August, 1996, requisit...
Taco Bell Corp. Vs. Shree Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT791
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This suit came up for hearing for the first time on 30th May, 1997 and an interim order as prayed for had been granted on that date. On 17.10.1997 a direction was issued for the first time for filing of the Written Statement within four weeks and this was extended further on 8.1.1998, 26.2.1998, 25.5.1998 (on which date cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed). On 27.8.1998, since Written Statement had still not been filed and since no appearance was entered on behalf of the defendant, notice of default was ordered to be issued to the Counsel for the defendant. On 22.2.1999 on a further request made on behalf of the defendant, one last opportunity for filing Written Statement within four weeks was granted. The matter came up for hearing on 15.7.1999, on which date there was no appearance on behalf of the defendant and the Written Statement had also not been filed.2. In view of the facts stated above this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10, on a fa...
Pramod Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT25
C.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned communication dated 21st April, 1995 (Annexure-P6) as well as for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make ad hoc allotment of Type-11 quarter in Sector-VII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be working in the High Court of Delhi w.e.f. 2nd January, 1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. It is further contended that the petitioner was 'offered appointment on 17th December, 1994 but as the Court was closed for winter vacations the petitioner was called to join duty w.e.f. 2nd January, 1995. Prior to the appointment of the petitioner, his father Shri Gopi Chand was in Government service and an allottee of Type-II Government accommodation bearing House No. 541 / VII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. The petitioner was residing in the said premises Along with his father for more than six months at the time of retirement of his fathe...
Nakoda Steel Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT391TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee M/s. Nakoda Steel Mills Pvt.Ltd. with reference to the impugned order, dated 5-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 31/97-C.E.(N.T.), dated 1-8-1997 as amended according to the annual production capacity of the unit.4. Arguing for the appellant, Shri Jitender Singh, learned Counsel, submits that the Commissioner has determined the annual capacity of production observing that furnace was of pusher type. He submitted that item furnace is only batch type and not pusher. He contended that in support of the contention of the party a certificate by the Chartered Engineer was placed before him. He submits that as per Board's Circular the Commissioner was required to take assistance from the technical authorities to ascertain whether fu...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT747TriDel
1. Question involved in the present matter is regarding admissibility of Modvat credit on some of the capital goods which are electrical machinery or parts of electrical machinery. The lower authority has allowed the Modvat credit. It is against the said order that the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal. Revenue's contention is that since the said goods are not used in production of any goods or in processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance these are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. It is also submitted by the ld. JDR that some of the items for example HRC Fuses falling under Tariff Heading 85.35 have been specifically included in clause (d) of Rule 57Q. Therefore, by inference, he submits, HRC Fuses falling under Tariff Heading 85.36 will get excluded from the scope of capital goods. Similarly, he points out that the Transformer for Induction Knocking involved in the present case does not give the voltage. It is...
Purolator India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT493TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Puralator India Ltd. is whether penalty is imposable on them.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, ld. Advocate submitted that they were manufacturing car heater assembly out of the major raw-materials provided by Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL). The raw materials were sent to them by MUL under provisions of Rule 57F(2), as it stood at the relevant time. The general permission had been given by the Assistant Collector to MUL for sending the inputs to them, which is evident from a letter dated 16-7-1986 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rohtak. In addition to the inputs received from MUL, they were also using certain other inputs and after manufacturing car heater assembly sending it to MUL under the challans received from Maruti along with the inputs. The Collector of Central Excise, under the impugned order, confirmed the demand of Rs. 20,23,887.15 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. The duty confirmed has already been paid by them and ...
Management of National Council for Cement and Building Materials Vs. D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)337; 86(2000)DLT221
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner in the writ petition is the Management of the National Council for Cement and Building Materials. Respondent No.1 was an employee of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. Respondent No.3 is the Government of NCT of Delhi. Respondent No. 4 is the Assistant Collector, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. In the writ petition the petitioner challenges an award dated 8.4.1996 passed by respondent No. 2 holding that respondent No.1 is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. By order dated 30.9.1996 passed in C.M. No. 6519/96 this Court stayed the operation of the impugned award on condition that the petitioner would deposit the amount of back wages in terms of the award in the Registry of this Court within two weeks. By order dated 18.2.1998 the writ petition was admitted and the interim order dated 30.9.1996 was extended until further orders. One of the prayers in the present applicatio...
A.P. Maheshwari Vs. Arya Vir Bakshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)576; 86(2000)DLT217; ILR1999Delhi121
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition is the defendant in Suit No. 44 of 1998 pending in the Court of Shri Satnam Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. 2. The plaintiffs were the landlords of property bearing Municipal No. C-2, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi and the defendant was the tenant in respect of the said property. When the tenant refused to vacate the premises even after the expiry of the period of tenancy and also failed to pay the arrears of rent the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for a decree for possession of the suit property and also a decree for Rs.1 lakh with future interest at 18% per annum. The said sum of Rs.1 lakh was claimed towards arrears of rent for the period from 1.1.1989 till 31.10.1990. For the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the suit was valued as hereunder: (a) For possession, Rs. 60,000/- being the annual rent of the premises. (b) For recovery of arrears of rent, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »