Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 19 of about 265 results (0.019 seconds)Punjab Auto Agencies Vs. Rajinder Kumar Bansal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ741
Arun Kumar, J.1. Plaintiff/respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,15,986/- against the defendant/appellant herein. The plaint was founded on the averment that the plaintiff had supplied certain automobile items to the appellant for which appellant did not make the payment. The defense of the appellant before the Trial Court was that appellant had made the entire payment of the bills in question to the respondent herein through Shri Ramesh Kumar Wahi who was representative of the plaintiff and used to collect the payments on his behalf. Learned Trial Court did not accept the plea of alleged payments made by the appellant to respondent herein through Shri Wahi and, thereforee, decreed the Suit.2. The main contention advanced by Shri D.R. Thadani, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court erred in not accepting the version of the appellant that payment was duly made to Shri Wahi who executed receipts for having received the amount and accordingly the paym...
Tag this Judgment!Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT596TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed against rejection of the refund claim of the appellant. The refund claim arose because of under-utilization of Modvat credit on account of the fact that the assessee was manufacturing goods for domestic market as well as for the export market.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufactured Picture Tubes which are cleared for domestic as well as export market.They are availing the benefit of input credit under the Modvat scheme on Glass Shells as input. The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 27,09,587/- on 11.07.1997 for the period form 01.01.1997 to 28.02.1997 with regard to unutilized Modvat credits on exports of finished goods effected during this period. The Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned the amount of Rs. 27,09,587/- with the condition that the amount shall be disbursed to the assessee by way of a cheque on the assessee's submitting a proof of the reversal of the equivalent amount in the R.G.23A Part II accounts. The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT129TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh who has held that Modvat credit of Rs. 2,04,81,197/- availed by the appellants on Engine, Alternators and other parts of two Diesel Generating sets, is not admissible to them under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules and hence recoverable under Rule 57-U and that benefit under Rule 57-R(2) and Rule 57-T(7) of the Rules is also not admissible, and has imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as GACL) are engaged in the manufacture of cement and cement clinkers falling under Chapter 25 of the credit on inputs as well as on capital goods under Rule 57-A and Rule 57-Q respectively. They entered into a contract with M/s.Wartisila Diesel India Ltdv Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as WDIL) for supply of two diesel generating sets for a price of Rs. 15.05 crores. M/s. WD...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Ispat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT800TriDel
1. In these appeals filed by M/s. Vikram Ispat (A Unit of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd.) and M/s. Kundalia Industries, references have been made to the Larger Bench on the question of quantum of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs available to them under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 5/94-CE., dated 1-3-1994.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Vikram Ispat manufacture H.P.sponge Iron and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. One of the inputs is Iron Ore Pellets which is either imported, procured from domestic manufacturer or procured from 100% Export Oriented Undertakings (100% E.O.U.).Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 provides the effective rate of duty of excise on goods manufactured in a 100% E.O.U. and cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area (D.T.A.). According to Notification the duty payable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act will be 50% of each of the duties of Custom...
Tag this Judgment!Mittal Engg. Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC634
1. The appellants manufacture Sugar Mill machinery viz., Juice Weighing Scale falling under Chapter heading No. 84,38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They got an order for supply of a 'Juice Weighing Scale' from M/s. Bhopal Sugar Industries, Sehore falling within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. Accordingly they cleared the parts of these scale from their factory premises on payment of appropriate duty, transported them to Sehore and fabricated the machine at site of the Bhopal Sugar Industries, This was detected by the Central Excise authorities and accordingly a case was booked against the appellants. A show cause notice was issued to them as well as to M/s Bhopal Sugar Industries in which it was alleged that the appellants had assembled juice weighing scale machinery at site out of the parts manufactured by them alongwith some bought out items resulting in the emergence of a new excisable commodity known as 'Juice weighing scale' classifiable ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ575
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. The petitioner by this writ petition, seeks a writ of mandamus, against the respondents to transfer the allotment of petrol pump/retail outlet site at Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110002 in her favour. 2. The petitioner's deceased son late Rajiv Chadha had been selected in September 1994, for allotment of a retail outlet site. Petitioner's case is that her deceased son being handicapped, was selected on merit for allotment. The allotment could not fructify as a writ petition bearing No. 4568/96 titled Sehkari Gramin Sewa Samiti v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, had been filed wherein the allotments of several petrol pump sites including that of petitioner's son had been challenged. On 29.1.1999, petitioner's deceased son, who had been imp leaded as respondent was deleted from the array of respondents on the footing that allotment was on merit and was not vitiated on the grounds set forth i...
Tag this Judgment!Balwan Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1293
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the court-martial proceedings held against him including the confirmation of sentence of imprisonment for life passed against him by the ourt-martial. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that a general court-martial under the Army Act (for short 'the Act') was convened to try the petitioner for having committed murder of the deceased B.N. Tripathy on 30th May 1992. After conclusion of the Court-martial proceedings, the petitioner was held guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life vide orders dated 26th May, 1993. The sentences passed against the petitioner was confirmed by the confirming authority as required under the Act. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 179 of the Act before the Chief of the Army Staff against his conviction and sentence and the same...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kishore Vs. Sukhvinder Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ585
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) whereby the plaintiff-applicant is seeking to amend the plaint and add the relief of possession in respect of the suit property being consequential to the relief of specific performance of the contract, already made in the plaint. 2. Brief facts are: that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants alleging therein that on 28th October, 1996, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell their flats bearing No.54-C and 54-D, Pandu Nagar, New Delhi to the plaintiff for Rs.7,70,000/-; the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the sale consideration to the defendants against receipts and balance of Rs.6,70,000/- was to be paid by plaintiff to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed and handing over of the possession of the said property, which was to be done within 2 months. On 28th De...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ranger Breweries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT447TriDel
1. In all these appeals, preferred by the Revenue, the common issue involved is whether the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture/propagation of yeast leviable to Central Excise Duty, being classifiable under sub-heading 2102.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. D.R., submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has given the process of manufacture of the yeast by the respondents; that for example M/s. Ranger Breweries Ltd. (Appeal No.E/3078/99-D), purchased fresh dried yeast from the open market in the form of Yellow powder; two kgs. of the yeast powder was put into a tank of diluted molasses and the mixture was kept for about 6 to 7 hours; the dried yeast thus got activated and it multiplied and through this process more yeast was propogated/generated in the mixture, known as BUB; the BUB was transferred into a big tank known as fermental and potable spirit was obtained after fermentation. The ld. D.R., further, submitted that the yeast is ...
Tag this Judgment!Burman Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT52TriDel
1. Appellant is a limited company which manufactures hair oil and lal dant manjan. These items are manufactured exclusively for supply to M/s. Dabur India Ltd. (for short, Dabur). The products are manufactured as per specifications of Dabur.2. Appellants are paying duty on the goods manufactured by them and sold by them to Dabur at their sale price to Dabur. A show cause notice dated 12.07.1994 was issued alleging "Burman Laboratories Limited exists entirely for the benefit of Dabur and does not have a separate existence. Therefore, it appears that the sale of products by Burman Laboratories to Dabur could not be treated as sales in the normal course of wholesale trade as many other considerations as mentioned above decide the sale and that the price at which Dabur sells the products of Burman to their wholesale dealers should form the price for assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Duty would appear to be payable on that assessable value" (para 9...
Tag this Judgment!