Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 18 of about 321 results (0.020 seconds)Tecumseh Products India Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)890; 82(1999)DLT518; 1999(51)DRJ606
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This order will disposed of both the petitions, filed under Sections 391(2), 392, 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking amalgamation of M/s. Tecumseh Products India Limited (Transferor Company) with M/s. Tecumseh India Private Limited (Transferor Company). The registered offices of both the companies are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The scheme of amalgamation provides that all the assets and liabilities of the business of the transferor company shall be taken over by the transferee company, including their workmen and the employees. As per the proposed scheme all the members of the transferor company, immediately on or before the effective date, shall become the staff, workmen and employees of the transferee company and their services shall be deemed to have been continued without interruption or broken by the reason of the said transfer. The service conditions applicable to such staff (workmen or employees) after such transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Hedges and Butler Ltd. Vs. M/S. Mohan MeakIn Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)885; 81(1999)DLT329
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.C.M. No. 2112/941. By this order I propose to dispose of the application registered as C.M. No. 2212/99 filed in the present petition/ appeal seeking for condensation of delay in the petition/appeal. 2. The petitioner has preferred an appeal in this Court under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Act as against the order dated 6th August, 1993 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi. While filing the aforesaid appeal there was a delay of about 166 days and, there fore, the aforesaid application under Order 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the Petitioner praying for condensation of the aforesaid delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. 3. It is stated in the said application that the impugned order, as against which the appeal was filed, was passed on 6th August, 1993 and the same was received by the representative of the petitioner at their Calcutta office during the third week of August, 1993. It is further stated in the application that the sa...
Tag this Judgment!N.L. Goel Vs. Daljit Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT275; 1999(50)DRJ854
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. Originally, the petition was filed under Section14(1)(b), (c), (h) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd April, 1994. The eviction petition was filed somewhere in 1983 by the respondent against the present appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal limiting their prayer only under Clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mr. Warrier, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the premises were being used for commercial purposes right from the inception of the tenancy and, thereforee, no order could have been passed under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention he has cited Dr. G...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Cement Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT35TriDel
1. The authorities below have denied credit on two counts : (i) conveyer belt credit has been denied on this item for the reason that the invoice under cover of which this item has been received is not pre-printed with the name and address of the registered person and full particulars of manufacturer and consignee are not given as required under Notification 23/95-C.E., dated 30-5-1995 and further Sl. No. of the said invoice is also not printed as required under Rule 57GG(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) credit has been denied on M.S tubes used for supply of water to compressor house, cement mill and for air supply to facilitate material movement ducts on the ground that this item is not entitled to credit during the relevant period viz.prior to 23-7-1996.2. Learned Counsel submits that the non-pre-printing of the invoice is not fatal to the claim of credit as held by the Tribunal in the case of RT Pack aging Ltd. reported in 1998 (26) RLT 602, particularly when there is no ...
Tag this Judgment!R.H. Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT819TriDel
1. This is an application praying for suspending the pre-condition of deposit for entertaining the appeal. Appellant, it is alleged, is a manufacture of Axle Beam Assemly which is a component part of tractors manufactured by Punjab Tractors Ltd. While carrying out this job work of manufacturing Axle Beam Assembly, they did not include the value of Axle Beam Bushes supplied free of cost by Punjab Tractors Ltd. On this basis, it is alleged that appellant wilfully suppressed the fact regarding the fitment of bushes supplied by Punjab Tractors Ltd. for job work to evade payment of duty leviable on the final product, i.e.in other words, in calculating the value of the final product, the cost of bushes received free of cost from Punjab Tractors Ltd. was not included. On this basis, a demand was made to deposit Rs. 3,16,913.05 and invoked the proviso contained in Section 11A of the Act, for making the claim for the period from November, 1990 to 31-7-1995.2. Punjab Tractors Ltd. had Axle Beam...
Tag this Judgment!indodan Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT554TriDel
1. These are two appeals, one filed by M/s. Indodan Industries Ltd. and the other by the Revenue being aggrieved with the same Order-in-Appeal' No. 191/93, dated 29-3-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The matter relates to the classification of the product Milkafe, a preparation of Milk, Coffee and sugar. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the said product under sub-heading No. 2107.91 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for M/s. Indodan Industries Ltd. 3. It is an old matter in which the classification list filed in the year 1986 is under dispute. We are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR.4. Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR submitted that the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the products under sub-heading No.2107.91 of the Tariff while the adjudicating authority had classified the same under sub-heading No. 2101.10 of the Tariff as ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Glass Graphics (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC125Tri(Delhi)
1. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents. However, they have filed cross-objection. We, therefore, heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned DR and perused the record.2. The issue involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the process like bavelling, sand blasting, etching and frosting etc. carried out by the respondents on duty paid glass and mirror amounts to manufacture. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has disposed of the appeal by observing that the Asstt. Commissioner's order holding these processes as amounting to manufacture has been set aside by his predecessor vide order No. 219/91/32, dated 17-7-91. This order has been upheld by us in appeal No. E/1875/93-B1 as per order dated 11-8-99. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue does not merit any consideration and is rejected. Cross-objections are also disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!New J.K. Cement Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT428TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has disallowed Modvat credit on (a) supporting structures of steel and (b) power pack voltage relay and choke cables used by the appellants herein in the manufacture of clinkers and cement. It is the contention of the appellants that the supporting structure of steel is a part and parcel of the plant, it is installed for the purpose of supporting clinker hopper and feed table for clinker loading from Kiln No. 3 into the dumpers and it controls flow as well as spillage of materials, regarding power pack voltage relay and choke cables, learned Counsel submits that these are admittedly electrical items and hence entitled to capital goods credit in the light of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47. He submits that since credit is available on the above mentioned disputed items, there is no warrant for imposition of any penalty and prays that...
Tag this Judgment!Aureola Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT337TriDel
1. In the impugned order, the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the Assistant Collector observed that spent sulphuric acid obtained in the course of manufacture of slurry should be cleared on payment of appropriate duty is a natural and legal consequence which automatically flows from his decision that Modvat credit on spent sulphuric acid cannot be denied. It is, therefore, a natural offshoot of the show cause notice issued in these cases and therefore, the appellant's contention that the order has gone beyond the show cause notice, is not justified. He further observed that the appeal is not sustainable in law and on facts.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of acid slurry. During the course of manufacture of acid slurry, spent sulphuric acid is generated as bye-product. A question, therefore, arose whether spent sulphuric acid is 'goods' for purposes of levy of Central Excise duty and if so, what is its classifi...
Tag this Judgment!Nirma Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT38TriDel
1. The appellants have filed appeal on 3 issues. The issues are whether spent sulphuric acid is excisable, if it is excisable what is the classification of spent sulphuric acid and whether Modvat credit taken on the inputs used in the manufacture of spent sulphuric acid is reversable or not. None appeared for the appellants.2. Shri K. Srivastava, ld. SDR submits that these issues came up before the Tribunal in the case of Keti Chemicals contained in Misc. Order No.52/99-C, dated 2-7-1999 [1993 (113) E.L.T. 689 (1'ribunal)]. We find that 3 issues listed above were decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal holding that the spent sulphuric acid is goods for the purpose of levy of duty and that the spent sulphuric acid is classifiable under Chapter Heading 28.07. In regard to reversal of Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of spent sulphuric acid, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal held that Modvat credit is not reversable.Following the ratio of that judgment, we hold th...
Tag this Judgment!