Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rollatainers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT716TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the issue is whether two items, namely, power cable and hoist are Modvatable as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 2. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had adjudicated upon the show cause notice issued to the respondents earlier, holding that the aforesaid goods viz. power cable and hoist were not capital goods for the purposes of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, and had accordingly confirmed the demand of duty raised on the assessee. In the assessee's appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order, the Commissioner (Appeals), by Order-in-Appeal, dated 29-8-1997, held that Modvat credit is admissible in respect of power cable and hoist under Rule 57Q ibid, following certain decisions of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.3. The learned JDR, Shri Y.R. Kilania is present for the appellant-Revenue. No representation for the respondents inspite of service of notice of hearing.4. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)29; (2000)ILLJ1193Del
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Order dated September 19, 1985 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The petitioner is a construction company engaged in the activities of undertaking building and construction contracts and carries out its construction work at various places, such as, Bokaro, Singrauli, Nirsa, Delhi and Calcutta. By virtue of Notification dated October 22, 1980 construction industries were covered under the provisions of the Act. The Notification in this regard came into effect from October 31, 1980 and is filed as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. On March 31, 1981 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the petitioner to furnish the required information within seven days in order to examine as to whether the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Mehta Educational Trust Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)839; 81(1999)DLT925
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the rates at which respondent Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) allotted land to the petitioners for purposes of running a school. The controversy in the present writ petition already stands settled as per decisions of this Court and as a matter of fact nothing really survives for fresh adjudication. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had sought allotment of land at pre-determined rates for purposes of running a school. The petitioner was allotted land measuring 1.0 acre at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi vide allotment letter dated 21st April, 1988 at a cost of Rs. 4,10,000/-. Since the rate was provisional, the petitioner had given an undertaking to pay the balance amount as and when the rates were finalised. The petitioner deposited the said amount with the DDA and obtained possession of the land on 13th June, 1988. The petitioner had sought allotment...
Tag this Judgment!Sunehri and Another Vs. Sh. Bhagwat Dayal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)761; 84(2000)DLT366
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.93 passed by the Sub-Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 610/92 allowing an application filed by the applicants who are legal heirs of late Prem for adding them as parties in the suit. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was registered as Suit No. 610/92. The plaintiffs who are petitioners herein stated in the plaint that their predecessor-in-interest Shri Ram Kumar was adopted by Smt. Javitri Devi who inherited a share of the offerings in the temple known as 'Sri Kalkaji Temple'. It is stated in the said plaint that there are three sub-set in Thula Tansukh, each having one anna share out of the three anna and in the said Thula Tansukh one subset is called Ramsi Dodu set to which the plaintiffs and the defendants belong to and are members of the said subset. It is also stated in the plaint that Thula Tansukh is having one anna share out of which plaintiffs are entit...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Corporation and Apex Societies of Handlooms Vs. State o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)769; 81(1999)DLT457; 1999(51)DRJ110; ILR1999Delhi465
ORDER1. The petitioner through the present application has sought an order to interdict respondent No. 1, their officers, employees and agents from encashing the bank guarantee dated March 5, 1997 issued at their instance by respondent No. 2. They further want that respondent No. 2 be restrained from releasing the payment thereof in pursuance of the letter dated September 23, 1997.2. Brief facts which would be required to be gone into while deciding the present application are as under: that the petitioner herein are a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner' for the sake of convenience). They are an instrumentality of the State under the Ministry of Textile. The same has been constituted by the Government of India with a view to taking up welfare schemes of the handloom sector and to look after the interests of the weavers throughout the country. Respondent No.1 i.e., the State of Bihar in one of their welfare schemes decided to ...
Tag this Judgment!Gen. Marketing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)689
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and disposed of at this stage. 3. Respondent workman had raised the dispute against her transfer from Delhi Office to Baroda Branch with effect from 15th April, 1997 alleging that the same was illegal and mala fide. The dispute was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal No.1 vide reference order dated 5th June, 1989 passed by Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration (now Govern- ment of National Capital Territory of Delhi). On resolving the reference the case was registered as ID No. 109 of 1989. After the completion of pleadings ID No. 109 of 1989. After the completion of pleadings and record- ing of evidence, the Industrial Tribunal passed impugned award dated 26th June, 1996 holding the transfer as bad in law on the ground that when the workman joined the employment of the management, Baroda Branch was not in existence and the same was set up later on. Relying upon the judgment of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Exports Ltd. Vs. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(51)DRJ170
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent is about maintainability of this appeal, which has been filed against the order passed on 19.2.1999 by learned Single Judge. Appeal has been preferred under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act with a prayer to set aside the execution proceedings instituted by the respondent.2. Facts in brief are that on 1.8.1994 parties entered into an agreement by which the appellant agreed to supply 108 Metric Tonnes of Menthol Crystals to the respondent during the period January, 1995 to June, 1996. The appellant could not supply the stipulated quantity of goods within time, thereforee, sought extension of time from the respondent. A notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant in repudiator breach on the appellant's obligation under the contract for supply of remaining quantity of good. On 18.12.1995 claim was filed by the respondent before the International General Produce Association, London, U.K. (hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kumar Steels
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC547; 2000(116)ELT15(Del)
1. By this petition under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short theAct) the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the application filed by the respondent under Rule 57F(2) amounted to a declaration under Rule 57G which categorically prescribes that an independent declaration shall be filed and that the party filing shall obtain a dated acknowledgment of the said declaration.2. Whether the requirements of Rule 57G are mandatory and cannot be taken as substitute by the filing of an application under Rule 57F(2).'2. Briefly stated, the material facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the assessed is engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel flats, steel ingots, M.S. ingots, covered by Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the allegation tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›