Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Aziz Ur Rehman Vs. C.C.E. Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On 11.12.2000 this matter was adjourned to this date at the request of Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Adv. for the appellants who was present in the court on that date. Today when the matter is called, the appellants are not represented. There is no request from them either requesting for an adjournment or giving the reasons for their absence. It is therefore, appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting their appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed for non prosecution....

Hans Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC512

1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants. In these two appeals the issues are different. In one appeal, the issues are about closure of the furnace and thus requiring change in Annual Production Capacity. In the second appeal the issue is about abatement of duty for closure of the unit for more than 7 days.2. In the first case the facts are that Annual Production Capacity of the furnace of the appellant was fixed on the basis of the furnace installed and operated from 1.9.97. There were three furnaces of the appellant which were in operation on 1.9.97. The Commissioner fixed the Annual Production Capacity of the unit taking the production of the three furnaces together. The appellants dismantled one furnace and requested for change of the capacity w.e.f. 1.10.97. The Commissioner considered the request of the appellant and re fixed their capacity based on the parameters of two furnaces effective from 1.10.97. The appellants then requested for another change in the number...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC366Tri(Delhi)

1. This Revenue appeal has been filed against the Order of the Commissioner of Excise, Chandigarh, dated 8-2-1999 allowing the respondents refund claim of Rs. 20,53,0177- out of an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs pre-deposited by them after adjusting duty payable on the royalty charges collected by them during the period in question. The refund claim arose consequent to the Tribunal decision, dated 18-10-1995 setting aside the duty demand or advertisement expenses. The respondents had pre-deposited the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs on 6-12-1994 for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequent to the Tribunal's order setting aside demand of duty on advertisement expenses, they claimed refund with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 26-11-1996. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants had not paid the duty under protest and had not followed the procedure laid down in Rule 233B of the Centra...

Vij Sales Corporation Vs. Lufthansa, German Airlines

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)146; AIR2000Delhi220; 87(2000)DLT195; 2000(54)DRJ46

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that it is a partnership concern carrying on business of export of ready-made garments. Subhash Chander Vij, being one of its partners is competent to institute the suit and sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the firm. Plaintiff through its agent M/s. Continental Carriers, New Delhi, on 31st July 1976 delivered a consignment of ready-made garments of the value of Rs. 1,48,200/- to the defendant for carriage to London and Airway Bill No. 220-5673 9174 dated 31st July, 1976 was accordingly issued by the defendant. On 3rd August 1976 the plaintiff handed over documents as noted in Para 4 of the plaint to State Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department, New Delhi for collection of the amount through its counterpart State Bank of India, London, UK from M/s. R.K. Fashion Ltd., to whom the said consignment was to be delivered. On 6th August 1976 the State Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department, New Delhi Branch se...

Abdul Alim Vs. G.K. Bhatnagar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)692; 85(2000)DLT263

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant/tenant in this appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has challenged the order dated 11th October ,1982 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in R.C.A. No.359/82. 2. The premises in question is a shop below he staircase of property bearing No. G-16, Houz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. On or about 28th May , 1979 the respondent/landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the Appellant on the ground that he had sublet the suit premises to one Jagdish Chander. The learned Additional Rent Controller, by his order dated 13th April,1982 dismissed the eviction petition. In appeal, the learned tribunal reversed the learned Additional Rent Controller's order and passed an order of eviction against the Appellant/tenant. 3. The suit premises were initially taken on rent by the Appellant some time in1966. On 13th October ,1978, the Appellant and Jagdish chand...

Bank of India Vs. M/S. Gopi Chand JaIn and Sons and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)681; 2000(2)ARBLR440(Delhi); 85(2000)DLT730; (2000)126PLR4

ORDER1. This appeal is against an order dated 9th September, 1999. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: On 3rd January, 1994 appellant Bank had instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,55,761.71. Respondent No.4 is one of the partners. He had admitted the liability of the partnership firm and paid the entire suit amount of Rs.5,55,761.71. This amount was paid on 4th August, 1997. Thus after this date the plaintiff's only claim, which was pending, was for pendente lite interest on the suit amount. 3. In the normal course as is happening today the suit would have been remained pending for the next 10 years. Defendant on his own makes an oral application that he would pay the simple interest @ 12% per annum. On 19th February, 1998 he was directed to deposit at rate of 12% per annum. It appears that respondent No.3 went to the plaintiff Bank to pay the amount. The plaintiff Bank refused to accept the amount. 4. Thereafter the suit was adjourned on number of occasions in orde...

Kalyan Chand Goel and Co. and Another Vs. D.D.A. and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)745; 2000(3)ARBLR546(Delhi)

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Contractor and is carrying on the business of construction works for the Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner was awarded Contract No. 7/A/RPD-IX/DDA/87-88 by respondent No. 1/DDA for the development of land at Rohini, Phase -II, S.H. Construction of SW Drains in Sector -IX. That certain differences and disputes had arisen between the parties and as per the Arbitration Clause in the agreement between the parties, Mr. V. D. Tiwari, respondent No. 2 herein, was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the Engineer Member of respondent No. 1/DDA. The Arbitrator made and announced his award by granting a sum of Rs. 11,50,896/- to the petitioner on 14th May, 1993 after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 2. The present suit is filed by the petitioner for making the said Award a Rule of the Court. Thereafter, the Objections were filed by the Delhi Development Authority/respondent No. 1 herein, ...

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. M/S. Sumer Chand and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)777; 2000(53)DRJ181

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Suit was filed, inter alia, alleging that the plaintiff is a statutory corporation incorporated under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Surinder Mohan Sood, Law Officer was authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to institute suit on behalf of the plaintiff vide Office Order No. 142 dated 27th March, 1974. On 19th June, 1973 the plaintiff invited tender No. 28 as per general conditions of contract as detailed in para No. 3 of the plaint, for supply of galvanised mild steel tubes with the schedule of requirement and dispatch as under :- Description Total D e s t i n a t i o n quantity (i) (ii) (iii) reqd. mts. Kiratpur Kalka Nangal Sahib Dam 15 mm 20000 10000 9000 1000 20 mm 20000 10000 8000 2000 25 mm 12000 2000 8000 2000 40 mm 6000 --` 5000 1000 50 mm 11000 5000 5000 1000 100 mm 1500 1500 --- ---2. It is alleged that last date for submission of tender was 23rd July, 1973. On 23rd July, 1973 the defendant submitted tender Along with a ch...

Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC284

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.5.88 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. In this case the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-Cus. dated 1.3.86 was denied to the appellant is respect of two stamp charging and pushing machines and one Gas cleaning car on the ground that the goods in question were complete machines and parts of the machines.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel. The coke of high grade is required for the manufacture of Iron and Steel and this coke is known as metallurgical coke. The said metallurgical coke is obtained after coking coal is charged into the coke oven plant known as Coke Oven Battery which are situated in the appellants plant. The appellants constructed a new Coke Oven Battery and for setting up for the new coke oven battery two stamp charging and pushing machines and one gas charging cleaning car was req...

Standard Batteries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT675TriDel

1. The issue for determination in the above appeal is eligibility of electric storage batteries manufactured by the Appellants herein and supplied to M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Limited at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 1/90 dated 1-1-1990.2. Notice issued to the Appellants of today's hearing has been returned with postal remark "Left". Hence we heard the ld. D.R. and perused the records and passed our orders.3. Notification No. 1/90 grants exemption from duty to assemblies and sub-assemblies of motor vehicles of certain types mentioned therein and manufactured by M/s. B.E.M.L. for supplying to Defence Ministry; provided that where the use of assemblies and sub-assemblies is done elswhere than in the factory of manufacture, procedure prescribed in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules should be followed. It is not the case of the Department that the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Rules was not followed; however, it is the case of the Revenue that the goods namely Electric...