Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 18 of about 265 results (0.020 seconds)Pioneer International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC136
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Pioneer International is whether the Risograph Printers 5600D, imported by them, is classifiable as Printing Machine, under subheading 8443.19 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by them, or under sub-heading No. 8472.90 as office Machine as confirmed by the Collector of Customs, under the impugned Order No. 22/93 dated 06.05.1993.2. Shri G.L. Rawal, Id Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported 30 pieces of Risograph Printers after making extensive enquiries that these Printers were capital goods falling under the category offset Printing Machine. He referred to letter dated 31.08.1989 of M/s. H.C.L. Ltd. addressed to Director General of Technical Development seeking clarification whether Risograph Printers were importable under OGL or Non OGL Capital goods import; that Dy.Chief Controller of Import and Export, under letter dated 04.10.1989 informed M/s. HCL Ltd. that the Risograph Printer was covere...
Tag this Judgment!Lipi Data Systems Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT91TriDel
1. The issues raised in these three appeals are identical. So, we consider it advantageous to dispose of all of them by a common order.2. Appellants, namely, M/s. Lipi Data Systems Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of 'computer line printers'. They have their factory at Udaipur and depot at Mumbai. They were clearing the goods from their factory on payment of duty at the price prevailing at the depot on the date of clearance. The goods were ultimately sold at the depot at the same, higher or lower price. Till October 1997, whenever the goods cleared from the factory were sold from the depot at a higher price, they used to pay the differential duty. From 1997, the appellants intimated the department that they have been paying differential duty by oversight and that the payment of duty at the time of stock transfer on the basis of price prevailing at the depot should be the correct method. The department issued show cause notices proposing to demand differential duty on the goods sol...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vitashiv Ceramics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT106TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein, who hold a Central Excise licence for manufacture of porcelain insulated blanks, filed classification list for manufacture of "Madhupam" brand insulators for Madhupam Enterprises, Limdi, a SSI Unit holding Central Excise licence. Madhupam Enterprises applied for cancellation of licence which was cancelled on 24.05.1990. During June 1990 to November 1990, the respondents cleared porcelain insulated blanks without paying any duty, claiming exemption under Notification 175/86. The Department was of the view that the benefit of SSI Notification was not admissible w.e.f. 24.05.1990 since Madhupam Enterprises, Limdi had ceased to exist w.e.f. 24.05.1990 and hence show cause notices were issued on 14-11-1990 and 07.02.1991, raising a duty demand of Rs. 23,440.03. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demands, by denying the benefit of Notification 175/86 as amended, on the basis that Madhupam Enterprises are only traders of e...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Rathi Steels Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT843TriDel
1. The impugned order in appeal has confirmed duty demand against the appellants under four headings and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 70 lakhs under Rule 173Q. These duty demands are challenged in this appeal.2. The first duty demand is on account of denial of modvat credit to the appellant. The credit involved is over Rs. 61 lakhs. The material facts of this dispute are that the appellant, even though not a small scale unit, availed themselves of exemption under notification No. 1 /93 and cleared goods worth about Rs. 30 lakhs without payment of any duty. The learned counsel submits that the appellants had reversed modvat credit on raw materials used in the manufacture of the goods cleared without payment of duty. He, however, concedes that, the appellant, not being a small scale unit was not entitled at all to the benefit of notification No. 1/93. He, therefore, submits that the appropriate action in the appellant's case is to assess all the goods manufactured and removed by them a...
Tag this Judgment!Oil India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT142TriDel
1. The dispute raised in this appeal is one between a wing of the Government against Excise department of the Central Government. Duty demanded from the appellant is Rs. 16,52,61,500/-. Out of this amount, appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 7,46,65,970/-. Balance amount outstanding comes to Rs. 9,05,95,530/-. Over and above, an amount of penalty has also been levied on the appellant. Be that as it may, M/s. Oil India Limited is a business venture of the Government of India. We do not find any ground to doubt the solvency of M/s. Oil India Limited. Even if M/s. Oil India Limited is directed to deposit the amount, it will be a change of hand, money has to move from one hand to another hand of the Government of India. In this view of the matter, we waive the condition of pre-deposit as contemplated by Section 35F of the Act. Stay petition is ordered accordingly and respondent is directed not to take any step to recover any amount pursuant to the order impugned in this appeal un...
Tag this Judgment!Schott Glass India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT419TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Schott Glass India P. Ltd. the issue involved is whether the goods imported by them are classifiable under sub-heading 8475.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as part of machine for manufacturing or hot working glass or glassware as claimed by them or are classifiable under sub-heading 7115.90 as articles of Platinum and under 8479.82 as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants imported Fore-hearth, Stirrer, and Nozzle which were classified by them under heading 8475.10 of the Customs Tariff. The Deptt., however, classified them under subheading 7115.90 as articles of platinum. The Appellants discharged the duty liability and cleared the goods from Customs.However, subsequently they filed a claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 36,95,990/- on the grounds that the goods are actually classifiable under sub-heading 8475.90. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs sanctioned refund of Rs. 10,35,073...
Tag this Judgment!Akshaya JaIn Vs. Airports Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1086; 2000(3)ARBLR563(Delhi); 87(2000)DLT330; 2000(55)DRJ183; 2000(3)RAJ256
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an arbitration petition, on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The petitioner's case is as follows:- (a) The petitioner is a firm of Architects & Interior Design Consultants. The respondent is the Airports Authority of India. A design competition was held for the work of construction of a Civil Aviation Training Centre at Bamrauli, Allahabad. After being successful in the design competition, the petitioner entered into an Agreement on 20th November, 1989 with the respondent (which was formerly known as National Airports Authority of India and is now known as Airports Authority of India) for the construction of a Civil Aviation Centre at Bamrauli. The petitioner was to provide architectural and engineering services as per the said Agreement. The petitioner was able to complete the work with due diligence on 30th April,...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. Nagrath and anr. Vs. Bikramjit Nagrath and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1185
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The first Appeal [FAO (OS) 290/99] arises out of an Order dated 25th August, 1999, passed by Learned Singe Judge disposing of IA.1992/96 in Suit No. 2327/94, filed by plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC. The other Appeal [FAO (OS) 350/99] is against the Order, passed on 19th November, 1999 in the same suit disposing of Appellant's review application (RA 29/99) and application of respondents 4 to 6 (IA. 9515/99) thereby clarifying the earlier order and directing the appellants to deposit in Court the entire amount of Rs. 9,66,000/- in terms of Order dated 25th August, 1999. 2. During pendency of the suit for dissolution of partition and rendition of accounts filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 against the defendants/appellants and the respondents 4 to 6, an application under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs seeking direction against the appellants and respondents 4 to 6 for deposit of a sum of Rs. 38,50,629.04 stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Anu Seth and Others Vs. Rohit NaraIn Seth and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)135; 87(2000)DLT486; II(2000)DMC505; 2000(55)DRJ310
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife of defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their children. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents, and defendant No. 6 is the brother, defendant No. 4 is the uncle, defendant No. 5 is the aunt, defendant No. 8 is the cousin of defendant No.1. It is the plaintiff's case that plaintiff No. 1 was married to defendant No.1 and stayed in the matrimonial home at 6A, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi for 8 years. The plaintiff No.1 has further averred in the plaint that owing to matrimonial disharmony, she left the matrimonial home Along with plaintiffs 2 and 3 and took shelter in her parents' house on 13th August 1999. The plaintiff No.1 has further stated that she is being denied the access to the matrimonial house by the defendants and consequently seeks a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs to her matrimonial home i.e. at 6 A, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. ...
Tag this Judgment!Virumal Praveen Kumar Vs. Gokal Chand Hari Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR518(Delhi)
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit claiming to be the lawful proprietor of the trade mark bearing numerals '555' for buttons, safety pins, hooks, eyelets, fasteners etc. and the said trade mark was registered under application No.555498 dated 30th July, 1991. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the defendant was the dealer of the plaintiff since 1991 and the suit was filed on the plaintiff coming to know that the defendant had also started marketing its product under the similar trade mark '555' and were attempting to pass off their inferior quality goods as of the plaintiff's. On the basis of the above averments while registering the suit on 15th September, 1998, this Court in is 7984/98 by an ex parte order had restrained the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or otherwise dealing in buttons and safety pins under the trade mark '555'. 2. Thereafter on 23rd October, 1998 the present is 9347/98 under Order...
Tag this Judgment!