Delhi Court September 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.
Siemens Telecom Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT160TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported mobile phones from M/s. Siemens AG, Germany. In the case of Bill of Entry No. 300549 and 300565 duty was paid on the goods covered by these Bills of Entry on 19-1-1996. Claims for refund of duty paid on these two Bills of Entry were filed on 19-7-1996. The authorities below have rejected the claim on the ground of limitation, holding that the refund applications have to be filed at least one day before the expiry of six months and not even on the date of expiry of six months, in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act.2. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Counsel who submits that the date of payment of duty is permitted to be excluded while computing the period of limitation and after excluding that date, the time limit for filing the refund claim is upto 19-7-1996 and the claims have been filed on that date and therefore, should have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed as time barred, having regard to the language of Sec...
Quality Ice Cream Company Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT161TriDel
1. The Collector (A) in the impugned order held that they have failed to produce any other certificate issued by Registrar of Trade mark on records nor any evidence to show that the ownership of brand "Kwality" was otherwise as contended by the Department or that turnover of M/s.Kwality Ice Cream Co. located at B-12, Lawrance Road, New Delhi owned by Sh. P.L. Lamba and Sh. Sunil Lamba was less than 200 lacs per annum."In the circumstances, the appellants are clearly ineligible to avail exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as explained in the impugned order with which I agree. I further find that a similar issue has also been decided vide this office Order-in-Appeal No.204/C.E./KNP/91, dated 7-5-1991 in the case of Ghai Ice Cream Pvt.Ltd., 13-D, Dada Nagar, Kanpur in which the appellants were held ineligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86-C.E. on the same ground. Applying the ratio of the above Order-in-Appeal to the present case, I uphold the impugne...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gee Ess Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT225TriDel
1. The appeal arising for regular hearing today is one filed by the Revenue. The learned JDR, Shri Y.R. Kilania is present for the appellant. None present for the respondents inspite of notice. However, their cross objection is on record. Hence, I am inclined to dispose of the appeal on its merits after hearing the learned JDR and considering the records of the case. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter sub-headings Nos. 7315.00 and 8431.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the Modvat facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the relevant period, the respondents had been receiving unmachined parts of chains etc. classified by the manufacturers under Chapter sub-heading 7325.90 and using the same as inputs for the manufacture of their final products. They had also declared the goods as such in their declaration dated 4-3-1993 filed under Rule 57G of the Rules ibid. At the relevant ...
M.P.K. Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT943TriDel
1. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur was communicated to the appellants on 9-2-1998. The appeal against that order has been filed in the Tribunal on 5-7-1999 and hence there is a delay of 393 days in filing of appeal. The applicants seek to explain the delay by stating that there is no preamble to the impugned order and they were under the impression that they could represent once again to the Commissioner of Central Excise for redetermination of their Annual Capacity of Production and accordingly, they filed a representation which came to be rejected by order dated 13-4-1999.2. Ld. Counsel submitted that against this order no appeal lies and therefore if the delay in preferring the appeal against the initial order of Annual Production Capacity Determination is not condoned, they would be left without any remedy, whatever.3. Ld. DR opposes the prayer of the condonation submitting that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and he cites th...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT217TriDel
1. This Appeal preferred by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.116/93, dated 30th July, 1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the appeal of the Respondents on the ground that the demand is time barred.2. The ld. DR submitted that the Adjudication order was passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise on 8-5-1992 and as per the definition given under Rule 2 of Central Excise Rules, Collector includes Additional Collector and the Appeal should have been filed by the Respondents before the Appellate Tribunal instead of Collector (Appeals) and as such Collector (Appeals) lack jurisdiction to decide the appeal and to pass the impugned order.3. The ld. Counsel submitted that though the Adjudication order is dated 8-5-1992, it was received by them in November, 1992 and the Appeal was filed by them in 1993. He further submitted that by the time the definition of the Collector in Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules has been amended and for the purpose of filing the app...
Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. Vs. Krishna Gulati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)170; 84(2000)DLT227
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 232/1999 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 17, Rules 2 and 3, CPC. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondent as plaintiff. The aforesaid suit was fixed for recording evidence of the witnesses of the defendant on 6.8.1998. On 6.8.1998 Counsel for the defendant did not appear and it was stated by the proxy Counsel that the Counsel for the defendant is not in a position to get the evidence of the defendant recorded on that date. The Additional District Judge, however, was of the opinion that the aforesaid prayer is not tenable and also held that the excuse sought to be put up is no excuse in the eye of law, and accordingly, fixed the suit for arguments on 19.8.1998 after closing the evidence of the defendant. On 19.8.1998 an application was filed by the defendant which was dismissed by the impugned order. The Tri...
Kuber Times Employees Union Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)191
ORDERCW. 5480/97 & CM. 10639/971. On 20th April, 1999 a statement was made by learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that dispute has been referred to Industrial Tribunal No. 2 vide notification dated 20th July, 1998 and in view of this statement the writ petition became infructuous. Since counsel for the petitioner was not present in court on that date the matter was adjourned for today. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts this position but states that the matter was referred for adjudication after 1 1/2 years of raising the dispute and that too when the present writ petition was filed. It is expected that when dispute is raised by the workman-union and concil- iation proceedings start and such conciliation proceeding end in failure, the appropriate government should take immediate steps to consider whether the matter is to be referred or not and if reference is required the same should be made without delay as the very purpose of industrial adjudication is defeated b...
Golden Hind Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit A-x New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)705; 1999(51)DRJ206; [1999]240ITR324(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act,) for the opinion of this Court':'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company is entitled to export market development allowance in the sum of Rs. 8,54,984/- or in any other sum, under Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company is entitled to deduction/relief in the sum of Rs. 98,396/- or in any other sum, under Section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. The assessed is a private limited company, incorporated on 28th July, 1978 with the object of carrying on the business of deep sea fishing etc. The assessment year involved is 1980-81, for which the accounting period ended on 30th June, 1979. For the relevant assessment year the assessed clai...
Mohan Lal Duggal Vs. Mr. Inder Mohan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)665; 81(1999)DLT655; ILR1999Delhi484; 1999RLR532
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by an order by the Additional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 24th April, 1989 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition. 2. Mr. Duggal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, con-tended that the petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the eviction petition that he was the owner of the premises in question . In support of his contention he has cited Tirath Ram Chopra and Another : AIR1982Delhi405 Syed And Company and Others Vs . State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Mr. Duggal has further contended that as a matter of fact when there was no pleading as regard to ownership of the premises in question, no evidence beyond that pleading ought to have been allowed by the Additional Rent Controller and petition was liable to be dismissed in this score. 3. It has been vehemently contended before me that the writing in the hand of fathe...
Bkst Labour and Construction Coop. Society Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)699; AIR2000Delhi193
ORDERC.M. Nayar. J The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the public notice issued by respondent No. 2 appearing in daily newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' dated 11th March, 1999 which is filed as Annexure-P1 to the writ petition. This notice reads as under:- 'Delhi State Industrial Corporation Ltd (A Govt. Undertaking) Security Wing, N-Block, Bombay Life Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 TENDER INVITATIION NOTICE2. On behalf of Managing Director, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. sealed tenders in closed envelopes are invited on daily 8 hours shift duty basis for 128 ex-servicemen/experienced security guards, from well known Security Agencies having business of minimum Rs. 25,00,000/- per annum and past experience of 5 years satisfactory service record. Applications Along with earnest money deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in the form of demand draft/pay order drawn in favor of Delhi State Industrial D...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »