Delhi Court February 2000 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.
Pearls of Beauty Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC310Tri(Delhi)
1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise classified Henna Powder in unit packings for use on Hair, manufactured by the Applicants herein, under C.E.T.A. sub-Heading 3305.90 for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and under Central Excise Tariff Act sub-Heading 3305.99 for the year 1996-97, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 33,83,172/- on the above goods cleared during the period from 1.4.1994 to 22.7.1996 under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, and has imposed penalty equal to duty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11 AC.2. Arguing on the stay application, Ld. Counsel Shri L.P. Asthana, contends that the entire demand is barred by limitation since the classification lists/declarations filed during the relevant period, describing the goods as Henna Powder classifiable under chapter Heading 3203.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 were approved by extending the benefit of exemption under Notification ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Technical Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT133TriDel
1. This reference application is filed by the Revenue on the ground that following questions are required to be referred to the High Court for its considered opinion: - "(a) Whether the availment of Higher Notional Credit under Rule 578 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on a date subsequent to the date on which the original credit was taken on receipt of the input, is legally correct The said issue is under examination before the Bombay High Court in view of Reference Application filed by the Regional Bench of CEGAT, at Bombay. The rejection of the departmental appeal in the CEGAT does not appear to be legal and proper on the grounds that adjustment of duty under Rule 57E of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is different from admissibility of Higher Notional Credit under Rule 57B. The Hon'ble Tribunal has infact, in the case of C.C.E. v. Associated Flexible & Wires (Put.) Ltd., 1994 (74) E.L.T. 902 (Bombay CEGAT) accepted the reference application filed by the department, and took a decision...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bonanza Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT932TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 when the manufacturer was having two units one at Ahmedabad and the other at Mumbai and the Mumbai Unit was not having Small Scale Registration while the Ahmedabad Unit was having such a Registration. There is no dispute that both the units belonged to the same manufacturer. The Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai had taken a view that the clearances of both the units one at Ahmedabad and the other at Mumbai were to be clubbed and small scale exemption thereafter to be extended to the Mumbai Unit. The Revenue has pleaded that as the Mumbai Unit was not having small scale registration, they were not eligible for the small scale exemption benefit. The rest of the order relating to penalty, redemption fine etc. had not been challenged.3. A number of opportunities had been given to them but the notices had been received back with the postal remarks 'no...
Kishan Lal Sindhi Vs. the Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)142
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to allot to the petitioner a flat at Vasant Kunj pursuant to the VIth Self Financing Housing Scheme announced by the Respondent-Authority in the year 1985 which was restricted only to retired/retiring public servants. The petitioner submitted an application for registration and allocation of flats on 5.8.85 giving preferences/options for allocation of flat in the areas namely (i) Mandakani Enclave, (ii) Kalkaji and (iii) Vasant Kunj (iv) Mukherjee Nagar. The petitioner also deposited Registration fee of Rs. 10,000/- vide Receipt No. 004332 dated 5.8.1985. 2. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was not intimated by the respondent - authority regarding any allotment of the flat under the VIth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1985, till the year 1994. The petitioner, however, received a letter from...
Vijay Kumar Vs. K.N. Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)563; 84(2000)DLT700
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff praying for an ad interim injunction in respect of the suit property for preserving it in its present position and condition. This application has been filed in a suit for specific performance, injunction and declaration. The facts as disclosed in the plaint are that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1 and he was its exclusive owner. On this premise, the parties executed a Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 14.10.1998 and Rs.two lacs were paid as a token advance. The various terms of the alleged Receipt-cum-Agreement have been set up. But significantly, in this narration the handwritten term, which is not denied by the parties, to the effect that a 'Collaboration Agreement will have to be signed by both the parties on the terms and conditions to be mutually agreed' was not stated. On the failure of Defendant No.1 to perform the contract written as well as verbal notices /demands were issued...
V.K. Saluja Vs. P.O. Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT147
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.1998 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies in a proceeding under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), dismissing the petition filed by the present petitioner as not maintainable and also against the order dated 21.7.1998 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, dismissing the revision petition under Section 78(6) of the Act. 2. The petitioner as claimant filed a petition under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies act alleging that certain payments were due from the respondent-Society to the petitioner who was an Architect for the Society and that in spiteful of notices issued the same has not been paid by the Society. The said petition was contested by the Society contending, inter alia, that the petitioner being a firm and Architect is not a member within the meaning and scope of Section 60 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner on th...
V.K. Arora Vs. K.B. Madan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)718; 85(2000)DLT24; 2000(56)DRJ184
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition seeking the eviction of the Petitioner/tenant on the ground that the Respondent bona fide required the suit premises for occupation for himself and for members of his family dependent on him. 2. Eviction was sought under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act). This clause reads as follows:- 14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :- (a) to (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) that the premises let for residential purpose are require...
Veera Rai Vs. S.P. Rao and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)70; AIR2000Delhi310; 85(2000)DLT237; 2000(53)DRJ802
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. By this judgment, I propose to decide two appeals filed under the provisions of Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). These appeals are S.A.O. No. 240/1982 (Veera Rai v. S.P. Rao & Ors.) and S.A.O. No. 271/1982 (S.P. Rao v. Veera Rai). Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 4th May, 1982 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in RCA No. 615/1981 and RCA No. 158/1979. 2. For the sake of convenience, Veera Rai (and those claiming under her) are referred to as the landlord and S.P. Rao (and others claiming under him) are referred to as the tenant. 3. The premises in question (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) are the first and second floors of 23/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The suit premises are a part of 'Madras Hotel', a landmark with which old-timers of Delhi are quite familiar. 4. It appears that sometime in 1938, the suit premises we...
Pleasant Securities and Finance Ltd. Vs. Nri Financial Services Limite ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)768; AIR2000Delhi245; 2000(53)DRJ346
ORDERVikramajit Sen. J. 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order xxxvII, Rules 3 (3) & (7) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Applicant has prayed for the condensation of the delay in entering appearance and for being permitted to participate in the proceedings under Order xxxvII of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. It is necessary to mention some facts of the case. Attempts to serve the Defendants were made from, After several attempts, an application was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on 24.2.1999 the Joint Registrar ordered that the Defendant be served with summons in the prescribed form under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure by publication in The Statesman as well as by affixation at their last known address and at the Notice Board of the Court returnable for 5.7.1999. On a report received from the Registry, that service had been affected, as contemplated b...
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT65TriDel
1. Whether Department was right in holding that Part-II price cannot be taken as the normal price when the buyers had failed to fulfil the condition of clearing the quantity they had contracted to clear in terms of the Contract' is an issue to be resolved by the Larger Bench.2. Originally three member Bench was constituted to hear the matter.Later it was enlarged to Five members in view of the submissions made by the Departmental Representative that view taken by the three member Bench in the case of Bombay Latex & Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. 1985 (19) E.L.T. 527 (T) is also to be considered while deciding the issue herein.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various chemical products like distilled turpentine and dipentine oil etc. They sell the goods at the factory gate to wholesale dealers. The appellants filed price list in Part-I for such clearances. Apart from that they also effected sales to contracted buyers who purchased bulk quantities. In the said contracts wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »