Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)(21)ELT607TriDel
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. B. Rajendra Oil Mills & Refinery (hereinafter called the appellants are the manufacturers of vegetable oils. During the period April 1966 to April, 1977, they paid a sum of Rs. 22,544.22 as cess levied and collected under this Act. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 16,348.20 related to Castor oil for which they filed a refund claim on the ground that Section 6 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 provides that when oil is exported refund will be granted. During this period they had sold the castor oil through Commission Agents and exported by the shippers and, therefore, they arc entitled to the refund of the cess duty paid on this exported oil. The Assistant Collector (Refunds) before whom the refund claim was filed, rejected the said refund claim by his Order dated 16-11-1973. The appeal before the Appellat Collector of Central Excises, Madras was also rejected vide his order dated 5-8-1974.2. Being aggrieved by the said Order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(61)ECC180
1. Both these appeals arise from common facts involving same question of law and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The appellants filed refund claim for duty paid by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum in respect of supplies of NGL at concessional rate of duty for using manufacture of fertilizer. The appellants by their letter of refund claimed excess payment of duty paid by M/s. ONGC, who were the suppliers. The department issued a show cause notice in these refund applications in which it was stated that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Liquid Nitrogen/Liquid Ammonia and Urea falling under Chapter No. 28 & 31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and holding Central Excise Registration Certificate No. 0037-04-01-0027 for the manufacture and clearance of the said excisable products. It was stated that the appellants had filed a refund claim seeking excess payment of duty paid by M/s. ONGC. Hazira, Surat under Notification No. 75/84 dt.1.3.84 as amend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 158/2014 Reserved on:5. h February, 2015 Decided on:10. h February, 2015 % VIMLA DEVI Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Saurabh Chauhan and Mr. Varun Jain, Advocates versus SUNIL DUA Through ..... Respondent Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Gagan Minocha, Advocates Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. By the impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2013 the learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) on the ground that since the rent as per the notice dated 30.12.2008 was `3630/- P.M. the petition does not fall under the purview of the DRC Act.2. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent from shop No.6, A Block Market, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi (in short the tenanted premises) which were let out vide agreement dated 16th November, 2010 at a monthly rent of `3000/-. Though as per the agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. The issue that is referred to the larger bench in this case is as follows: i) Whether despatch of the adjudication order by speed post amounts to a valid service under Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in absence of proof of actual delivery of the speed post? ii) Whether simultaneous affixing of the order on the notice board while dispatching it by speed post is sufficient compliance of Section 153(b) of the Customs Act? 2. The relevant facts that needed reference were that the assessee in the given cases filed an appeal within the statutory time of appeal from the date of receipt of the order by them and the department raised a preliminary objection from entertaining the appeal on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeal.3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the statutory provisions as envisaged in Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 is very clear in as much as that the order has to be physically served upon the appellant. It is his su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 18(1980)DLT482
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 is by the Auction Purchaser against the Judgment and order dated February 28, 1979 of the Company Judge declaring auction sale of the property in execution of money decree as invalid and void because it was held without leave of the Court. (2) M/S. Tanwar Finance Private Limited a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act) in a meeting held on 16th November, a special resolution that the company be wound up voluntarily and appointed Ch. Ram Singh son of Ch. Bhanwar Singh as liquidator. Prior to the passing of this resolution Kanwar Ram Chander had filed a suit against the said company for recovery of Rs. 13.000.00 which was decreed on 6th November, 1967, and on 15th July, 1968 he got attached the land belonging to the company, measuring 22 Bighas, 8 bids was bearing Khasra No. 31 and 410/28 situated at Azadpur, Delhi. The executing court by order dated 6th September, 1968 d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003(1)ARBLR32(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT275; 2002(63)DRJ516
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The virus of Rule 21 of the Delhi Country Liquor Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1962 is in question in this LPA and connected writ petition.2. The basic fact of the matter, which is similar in all the cases, is not much in dispute.3. However, for the purpose of disposal of these cases, we may note the fact of the matter from CWP 1253/2000.4. The writ petitioners have been grated license for wholesale supply of liquor in form CLW-1/L-9. In terms of the conditions of the said license, liquor was to be supplied in the bottles at the rates specified therein. The petitioner deposited the security amount and license fees in terms of the Terms and Conditions thereforee. In terms of Clause 20 of the Terms and Conditions of the Contract, the licensee is required to hold such stocks of liquor as are considered by the Collector of Excise to meet day-to-day requirements of the country liquor vends and failure on his part to do so would entail him to pay penalty not exceeding Rs. 2/- pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IAD(Delhi)418; 3(1998)CLT657; 74(1998)DLT798
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Delhi Finance Corporation, the respondent No. 1 is a statutory body incorporated under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for providing financial assistance by way of granting loans to the entrepreneurs in various fields. One Shri Brahm Singh was sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs. 2.68 lacs for purchase of mini bus in the year 1990. He defaulted in the repayment of the dues to the Corporation. Recovery Certificate was issued against the borrower and his guarantors on 4.11.92. The hypothecated vehicle was taken into possession by the Corporation on 22.3.1993 in exercise of power conferred by Section 29 of the Act. (2) It appears that the said Brahm Singh was holding a point-to-point stage - carriage permit from the respondent No. 2 - the State Transport Authority of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for operating on the route - from Ito to Rajauri Garden, Delhi. (3) On 2.4.93, the said Brahm Singh addressed a letter to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(103)DRJ263
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of a notification dated 10.08.07 issued under Sections 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire an area measuring 16468.76 square metres comprising different survey numbers mentioned in the said notification situate in Village Sultanpur of Delhi. A declaration dated 1st November, 2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to the said land has also been assailed.2. The petitioners are owners of different parcels of land situate in different survey numbers of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi. An area measuring 16468.76 from out of the said survey numbers was requisitioned by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation for construction of its Depot at Ghitorni in connection with what is known as 'Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II'. Upon consideration of the said requirement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 136(2007)DLT346
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Late Shri Jagdish Lal Jaggi was the owner of property bearing No. 12/1, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi having acquired perpetual leasehold rights in pursuant to Perpetual Lease Deed dated 22.9.1965 (Exhibit AW-1/2). The Perpetual Lease Deed inter alias provided as under:(e) The ground rent will be payable in advance in half yearly Installments on the 15th January and 15th July each year. The ground rent shall be payable for the full half year for the period from the date of purchase of the grant of a lease of the site on the 15th January or 15th July next following as the case may be and shall be paid by the purchaser at once at the time of such purchase.1. The Lessee doth to the intent that the burden of the covenants may run with the said land and may bind any permitted assignee thereof hereby covenant with the Lesser as follows:(i)...(ii)...(iii)...(iv)...(v)...(vi) not without the written consent of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi to carry on or permit to be carried ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 133(2006)DLT148; (2007)2LLJ340Del
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition (C) No. 65 of 2002 thereby upholding an order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in O.P. No 204/1993.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent was appointed with the appellant Corporation in February 1981 as a conductor. While he was on duty on 29.10.1992 on the bus No. DBP-6458 from Delhi to Ganga Nagar, an Assistant Ticket Inspector (ATI) along with other members of the ticket checking staff boarded the said bus at Sher Pur (Sirsa) and found that four persons were traveling in the bus without tickets. It is the appellant's case that those passengers disclosed that they boarded the bus at Fatehabad for going to Sirsa and had paid Rs. 36/- as fare charges to the respondent who had not issued them tickets. On the basis of the report of the checking staff, the Depot Manager issued a c...
Tag this Judgment!