Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Sunder Singh and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT966TriDel
1. Short question involved here in this appeal of Revenue is whether parts, namely, fly wheels, pulley, suction and discharge stock valve, oil separators and accumulators manufactured by the appellants are to be considered as disentitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 inasmuch as Clause (iv) of Annexure to the said Notification excludes "refrigerating, air-conditioning appliances and machinery and parts and accessories thereof falling under Chapters 84,85 or 90" from the benefit of the said notification. Moot question, therefore, before us is whether the aforesaid parts are parts of refrigerating, air conditioning appliances and machinery.1.1 Lower appellate authority has held that these are not parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances or machinery. The said authority has based its finding on a Trade Notice No. 67-C.E. (1-Ch.84)/86, dated 30-9-1986 which is in turn based on a circular of the Board. There is also a Board's Tariff Advice available at...
Tag this Judgment!Kundalia Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT763TriDel
1.1 The appellants herein are a 100% EOU. The appellants herein received their inputs from a 100% EOU. The duty paid by the 100% EOU is in accordance with the proviso to Section 3 read with Notification No.97/91-C.E.1.2 By virtue of the aforesaid provisions duty had been paid by the 100% EOU and the inputs received by the appellants herein to the extent of 50% of each of the duties as if the goods had been imported from abroad i.e. 50% of the customs duty plus 50% additional duty of customs and 50% of any other duty leviable on such had they been imported from abroad.2. A question has arisen what would be the amount of Modvat credit which the appellants herein would be entitled to. For this purpose we have to look to Rule 57-A. The said rule provides, by proviso to that rule, that credit of duty specified in respect of any goods produced or manufactured by 100% EOU and used in the manufacture of final products in any place in India shall be "restricted to the extent of duty which is e...
Tag this Judgment!Goodyear (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC602
1. The appellants filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 24.8.92 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellants was rejected on the ground that duty was not paid under protest. Therefore, the refund is time-barred.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tyre, tubes and flaps. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification 217/86-CE dated 2.4.86 in respect of tyre bead wire rings. The benefit was denied on the ground that duty was leviable on tyres beed wire rings in so far as they were used in the manufacture of tyres cleared at nil rate of duty. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit and a demand was confirmed. The appellants filed appeal before the Collector of Central Excise against the adjudication order and the appeal was accepted. In consequence to that acceptance of appeal, they filed refund claim for the period 1.6.88 to 11.12.90. In the impugned order, the refund c...
Tag this Judgment!Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT106TriDel
2. By the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-I has denied any benefit of the abatement claim of the appellant herein for the various periods mentioned in the order. The impugned order does not quantify any demand of duty made against the appellant.Consequently, the provisions of Section 35F are not at all attracted in this case. Hence, the stay application is dismissed as uncalled for....
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Poddar (Huf) and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)122; 81(1999)DLT812; 1999(51)DRJ305; [1999]240ITR372(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, owners of house property bearing Flat No.402, Adishwar Apartments, 34 Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi, have challenged the order passed by the Appropriate Authority, respondent no.1 herein, on 31st December, 1997 in exercise of its powers under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short the Act), directing purchase of the said property by the Central Government. Though in the petition various reliefs, including the quashing of the purchase order, have been sought but during the course of motion hearing on 30th July, 1998, learned counsel for the petitioners had confined the challenge only to the deduction made by the Appropriate Authority from the amount payable to the petitioners in terms of Section 269UF by applying the principle of discounting as envisaged in Section 269UA(b) of the Act.2. Shorn of elaborate details, the facts material for the purpose of this petition are a...
Tag this Judgment!Gowersons Publishers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)135; 81(1999)DLT874; 1999(51)DRJ580; [1999]240ITR191(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made at the instance of the assessed pertaining to assessment year 1975-76 seeking opinion of the High Court on the following question of law:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessed company was entitled to claim depreciation under the provisions of Section 32 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of factory building belonging to it and used by it for its business.'2. M/s. Goverdhan Kapoor and Sons, a partnership firm owned certain assets including immovable property. The firm entered into an agreement of sale with the assessed company on 1st October, 1972 whereby the running business of the vendors was sold to the assessed company. The assets of the Company included the building. During the assessment proceedings the assessed claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the building which was disallowed by the ITO an the g...
Tag this Judgment!Frito-lay India and Another Vs. Amit Goswamy and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)653; 82(1999)DLT113
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. Plaintiff No.1 is a subsidiary of Pepsico India Holdings Limited which in turn is a subsidiary of plaintiff No. 2 Pepsico Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of the United States of America. Plaintiff No.1 is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a variety of snack products including potato chips. With a view to promoting its snack food products plaintiff No. 1 launched a promotional campaign by giving free collectibles in the form of round discs with or without grooves with each packet of its Lays & Cheetos chips. Though it is alleged in the plaint that this promotional campaign for promotion of the snack food products of the plaintiffs is prevalent in several countries in the world since 1992-93, in India the campaign was launched in or about September, 1998. 2. Defendant No. 2 is also a leading manufacturer of potato chips being marketed under the name and style of 'Uncle Chipps'. In order to boost the sale of its products defendant No. 2 in March, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gaj. Singh Yadav (Lt. Col.) Vs. Satish Chander Yadav and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)69; 82(1999)DLT1; 1999(51)DRJ240
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the application of defendants 14 and 16 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this application the applicants/defendants 14 and 16 seek to redetermine the share of the applicants in the property in suit. 2. The brief facts resulting in the filing of the application may be summarised as under : That one Shri Shiv Sahai expired intestate and was survived by his three sons namely Surat Singh, Naval Singh and Narain Singh. Each one of them had 1/3rd share in the property. Narain Singh also expired on 18th December, 1962 intestate and is survived by his four daughters. Defendants 14 and 16 are two of the daughters of the deceased Narain Singh. On the death of Narain Singh each of the daughters claimed to have inherited 1/12th undivided share in the property. Lt. Col. Gaj. Singh Yadav (Retd) one of the legal heirs of Surat Singh filed this suit for partition of the ancestral properties listed in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Electronic Enterprises Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)777; AIR2000Delhi55; 83(2000)DLT47; 1999(51)DRJ485
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts which has led the parties into this litigation are that on 11.4.1989 the Tender of the petitioner in respect of supply of Multimeters together with its 'Carrying Cases' was accepted by the respondents. As envisaged by the Acceptance of Tender (A.T.) the Security Deposit for a sum of Rs. 11,220 was duly furnished. The receipt of this sum stands admitted in terms of the letter of Respondent No. 1 dated 4.1.1990 The terms of payment are contained in Clause 18(c) of the A.T. dated 11.4.1989 and this was in two stages - 95 per cent payment at the time of Inspection and Despatch and the remaining 5 per cent balance thereafter. It has been admitted that 88 Multimeters at the rate of Rs. 2400/-, valued at Rs. 2,11,200/- together with their Carrying Cases at the rate of Rs. 150/-, valued at Rs. 13,200/- thereby aggregating the total of Rs. 2,24,400/- were dispatched on 26.10.1989. The delivery of these goods is not in dispute, but it is the case of the Respon...
Tag this Judgment!L.G. Information and Communications Ltd. and Others Vs. Mtnl and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)701; 81(1999)DLT900; 1999(51)DRJ276
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Letter of Intent dated June 3, 1999 issued by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 2 in pursuance to Tender No. MTNL 20-80(235)/98-MM dated 30.6.98 and a further relief is sought in the nature of mandamus commanding and requiring respondent No. 1 award and above said contract in favor of petitioner No. 1. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be company incorporated in Republic of Korea. It is engaged in the business inter alias of telecommunications and information technology and having an annual turnover of over US $ 2 billion. The company is part of large business multi-national conglomerate known as to L.G. Group with annual world-wide turnover exceeding US $ 100 billion. Petitioner No. 2 is a company stated to be incorporated in India and is part of the Escorts group of companies. Petitioners 1 and 2 have agreement to jointly do business in India in the field of telecommunica...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »