Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Cegat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(81)ECC644; 2002(144)ELT539(Del)

ORDER1. Heard. This is an application under Section 35G(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944. After having heard the learned Counsel of the parties, we direct the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question for opinion to this Court :-'Whether Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to caseswhere though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation ofthe order is pending?' 2. This application stands disposed of....

Pawan Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT59TriDel

1. In these two appeals-one filed by M/s Pawan Brothers and the another filed by the Revenue-arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No. NP (69)CE/2000 dated 12.02.2000, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue involved is whether the different products, manufactured by the Assessee are usable as parts and accessories of air-conditioning and refrigerating appliances and are classifiable under Sub-Headings 84.15, 84.18 and 84.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and are not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 01.03.1986.2. Shri R.K. Sharma, Learned S.D.R., mentioned that exemption under Notification No. 175/86 is not applicable to airconditioning and refrigerating appliances and machinery and parts and accessories thereof, falling under Chapter 84, 85 or 90 as per Para 4(IV) of the Annexure to the Notification; that Commissioner (Appeals) has held in the impugned Order that heat exchangers and 'cooling towers' are eligible for exemption...

Dewas Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT76TriDel

1. These are four appeals arising out of two Orders-in-Appeal Nos.827/94, dated 19.12.1994 and 421/94, dated 15.06.1994. Two appeals have been filed by M/s. Dewas Metal Section Pvt. Ltd. and two appeals have been filed by the Revenue respectively.2. We heard Shri Pradeep Jain, Id. Advocate along with Shri Mahendra Chaturvedi, Representative of Assessee, and Shri S.P. Rao, Id. DR.3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. M/s. De-was Metal Section (P) Ltd. manufacture angles, shapes and sections which were classified by them under Heading 7216.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. These goods have been classified under sub-heading 7308.90 as parts of shutters and under Heading 87.08 as Motor Vehicle parts by the Department. The classification of the impugned products is no more res Integra as it has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal is the case of Press Metal Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 217. The Larger Bench o...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ess Bee Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT203TriDel

1. In all these appeals, arising out of two orders-in-appeal No.1937-1954/99 and 1955-1967/99 both dated 12-11-1999, the issue involved is whether all the respondents manufacturing Brass Sanitary Bathroom fittings and affixing with the brand name of another person are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986.2. Briefly stated the facts are that all the respondents manufacture Brass Sanitary Bathroom fittings falling under Sub-heading 8481.80 and 8481.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the goods were packed in cardboard boxes on which stylised brand name "ARK" was printed; that the labels affixed on cardboard boxes also showed the brand name "ARK" in the stylised script; that name and address of M/s.Arkson Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh was also printed on the label; that in addition "ARK" was also put on the Sanitary fittings by pasting stickers and also by affixing tickli on the body of the fittings; that all the respondents were availing e...

Gulab Sundri Bapna Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, emanate from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, New Delhi on 16-12-1991 relevant to the assessment year 1988-89.2. Since both the appeals arise from a common order of the CIT (Appeals), we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. The Revenue in the first ground is aggrieved against the deletion of addition of Rs. 24,81,705 under the head capital gains, In order to understand the controversy in hand, it is sine qua non to mention the facts in brief. A piece of land measuring 24.1 acres at village Arkpur owned by the Government and managed by the Land Development Officer was given on lease on 19-3-1924 in favour of Shri Ram Singh Kabli under a registered deed. The lease Was in perpetuity in the name pf Delhi Pottery Works' (P.) Ltd. Shri Ram Singh Kabli kept only 5 acres and alienated the rest of the land measuring 19...

Tecron Beverage Engineering Vs. Kettner Gmbh and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1025; 88(2000)DLT392; 2000(55)DRJ414

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed this application under Order xxxvII, Rule 2(3) CPC alleging that defendants admit that they were served with summons on 25th February 1999. The power of attorney executed by Ms. Elizabeth Mathews as attorney of defendants on 18th March 1999 in favor of Sh. Joseph Pookkatt, Advocate, was filed on or after 23rd March 1999. There is no power of attorney placed on the file in favor of Sh. Rajiv Bansal, advocate through whom appearance was entered into by the defendants on 23rd March 1999. Authorisation in favor of said Ms. Elizabeth Mathew has not been filed by defendants. No application has been moved seeking condensation of delay in entering appearance by the defendants. It is further alleged that plaintiff had prepared three sets of the copies of plaint and documents and each set was tied with double knot with tags in machine punched holes. Each set was thereafter kept in a cloth lined envelope and weighed and additional postage stamps paid thereon....

Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (R) Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1082; 81(1999)DLT82

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. As a short question is involved, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for hearing. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the award dtd 30.9.1982 on the ground that the respondents themselves had abandoned the award by initiating proceedings for regularisation of unauthorised colonies. Petitioner No.1 is the Ashok Nagar Welfare Association and peti-tioner No.2 is its President. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that members of petitioner after having purchased the land had raised the construction more than two decades ago. No objection Certificate had also been granted for electrification. Structures were raised and members of petitioner have been residing there. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not fairly dispute that the petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings but the said challenge failed and as a result of this award was published. Learned counsel submits that...

Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Lalit Kumar Aggarwal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1198; [2003]115CompCas799(Delhi); 2001CriLJ545; 88(2000)DLT133; 2000(55)DRJ524

ORDERKhan, J.1. Respondents filed CW 1578/99 challenging money decree passed by DRT. They also sought interim stay which was granted conditionally requiring him to deposit Rs.13.05 lakhs within six weeks. They executed an undertaking for this whereby Rs. five lakhs were to be paid by them within two weeks and the balance in four weeks thereafter. They, however, failed to deposit resulting in vacation of stay order. 2. Petitioner Bank (respondent in CW) has filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance of court order on plea that respondents had breached their undertaking. L/C for petitioner Mr.Vasudevan submitted that respondents had warded off execution of the decree on the strength of undertaking given by them to make deposit and once he had failed to act upon this undertaking, they had rendered themselves liable to contempt action. 3. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, L/C for respondents submitted that their undertaking to deposit Rs.13 lakhs or so was in lieu of the stay of decree by the co...

Nisha Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi439

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Appellant is the owner/landlady of the suit property bearing No. XVI 10203, Karol Bagh, Padam Singh Road, New Delhi. The building in which the suit premises is situate is known as 'Jamuna House'. Suit premises comprises of entire basement i.e. one hall and toilet measuring 3659 sq. feet and containing carpet area of 3570 sq.feet. The premises was let out by the appellant/plaintiff to the New Bank of India Ltd. vide lease agreement dated 18th August, 1991. Initial period of lease was five years and the rate of rent was Rs.6 per sq.feet for total carpet area of 3570 sq.feet which comes to Rs. 21,420/- per month. In case of renewal of lease, lease agreement provided for enhancement of rent by 15 per cent over the agreed rate of rent. Defendant was allowed to construct a strong room in the lease premises. After the expiry of five years, the lease was renewed for another period of five years i.e. w.e.f. 18th August, 1986 to 17th August, 1991. This was done vide plainti...

Smt. Gulab Sundri Bapna Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD455(Delhi)

ORDERPer R.S. Syal, A.M.These cross-appeals, one by the assessed and the other by the revenue, emanate from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-III, New Delhi on 16-12-1991 relevant to the assessment year 1988-89.2. Since both the appeals arise from a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.I.TA. No. 2947 (Delhi)/1992 - Revenue's appeal3. The revenue in the first ground is aggrieved against the deletion of addition of Rs. 24,81,705 under the head capital gains. In order to understand the controversy in hand, it is sine qua non to mention the facts in brief. A piece of land measuring 24.1 acres at village Arkpur owned by the government and managed by the Land Development Officer was given on lease on 19-3-1924 in favor of Shri Ram Singh Kabli under a registered deed. The lease was in perpetuity in the name of Delhi Pottery Works (P.) Ltd. Shri Ram Singh Kabli kept o...