Delhi Court July 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 62 results (0.019 seconds)Commercial Refrigeration Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT534(Del)
Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. The petitioner firm carries on the business of manufacture of Refrigeration equipment. On 7th January, 1966 the petitioner sold one Beverage Cooler Cabinet with electric motor to M/s. Ashok Stores, Kamala Nagar, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1,078/- including excise, special duty and sales-tax. On the same day the petitioner sold to the same party one imported Bitzer Unit No. D230-G and electric motor single phase of 220 volts AC for a sum of Rs. 1,546.25. This amount also included sales-tax. These goods were cleared from the factory of the petitioner firm in the presence of the Inspector of Central Excise on payment of appropriate excise duty after filling the prescribed AR 1 from. On 22nd May, 1969 i.e. after a period of about three years respondent No. 2 issued a notice under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) alleging that the petitioner firm had sold one Beverage Cooler compete with condensing Unit and electric motor fr...
Tag this Judgment!Gunwant Rai Harivallabh Jani Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT934TriDel
1. his Reference Application has been filed against Order No.A-426/84-NRB, dated 9-11-1984 passed by North Regional Bench of this Tribunal in Appeal No. ED (Del) (T) 619/82-NRB, titled Gunwant Rai Harivallabh Jani, Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore.2. The applicants were charged for manufacturing Bidis outside their factory and selling them under their brand name "Ranvir Chhap Bidi" without payment of excise duty. After appreciation of evidence on record and hearing the parties counsel, this Bench of the Tribunal held as under : "...The evidence produced by the department is more than sufficient to connect the appellants with manufacturing of bidis outside their factory and to clear the same under their brand name "Ranvir Chhap Bidi" without payment of excise duty and therefore, the department has rightly confiscated those bidis and imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,000/ upon the appellants for violation of the Rules 9(2), 52, 52-A and 226 of the Central Exci...
Tag this Judgment!Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(23)ELT538TriDel
1. The point of dispute in this case is whether bed-sheets etc. made out of duty-paid dyed/printed cotton fabrics in running length should have to pay differential duty under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants buy duty-paid dyed/printed cotton cloth in running length (sheeting) from their sister concern located adjacent to their factory. They cut the cloth into pieces of required length and then hem and stitch the four sides of those pieces. The pieces thereupon assume the form of bed-sheets, bed-covers, pillow covers, table linen etc. The appellants market them under their brand name 'BICHHONA'. There is no dispute about pillow covers. The appellants are paying duty thereon under the residuary Item 68 of the Tariff. The dispute in this appeal is about the remaining items only.3. Before going into the nature of the dispute in detail, it would be helpful to notice the material portions of Tariff Item No. 19 :- "Cotton fabrics"...
Tag this Judgment!Sat Pal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT325; 1986(11)DRJ242
Malik Sharief Ud-Din, J. (1) In this case the victim is one Dasrath, son of Chedi, a Rikshaw Puller, Old Lajpat Rai Market Delhi, who after allegedly receiving a knife injury in the abdomen at the hands of the appellant was removed to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital by his wife, Shakuntala, Pw 3. The incident is dated 22nd August 1979 and has allegedly taken place at the Jhugi which was occupied by the deceased Darshan and Shakuntala Pw 3. The information of the deceased having been admitted to the hospital by Pw 3 Shakuntala was conveyed to the police station Kotwali by Duty Constable Ram Avtar pursuant to which a report Seriall No. 102-B was recorded in the police diary and A.S.I. Thakur Singh Pw 1 was entrusted with the same. AS1 Thakur Singh on his arrival at the hospital procured a certificate from the doctor about the patient unfit for making a statement and finding no witness to the occurrence present in the hospital and also depending upon the medico-legal report made an ...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. JaIn Vs. the Superintendent, Central Jail
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ349; 1985RLR502
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) The petitioner. Dr. N.S. Jain, approaches this Court for the second time in connection with and in regard to his submission that he be ordered to be prematurely released from jail where he is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment on conviction by the Sessions Jud.ge under Sections 302/120B/34, Indian Penal Code, which sentence was upheld by the High Court and, in a way, confirmed by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the special leave petition of the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court. The petitioner, including the period of detention as an under trial while being prosecuted for the above offences, has by now been confined for almost 16 years. (2) Originally the petitioner had approached this Court with a complaint that his case was not being considered for premature release as postulated by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with para 516-B of the relevant jail manual. In that case this Court had directed that Delhi Administra...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvel Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2104Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Muthuvel Industries (hereinafter called the appellants) manufacture, amongst other things, office files using tag or slip, lever arch files, fibre board files with the brand and description printed on the front page.The appellants claimed that the printed office files were products of printing industry attracting exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. dated 1st March, 1975 (as amended). The concerned Assistant Collector rejected the claim of the appellants.2. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras who by his Order-in-Appeal No.2085/80 dated 20-11-1980 under C. No. V/68/31/80 also rejected the appeal filed by the appellants holding that files manufactured by the appellants fall under item 68 and are liable to duty. He observed as under : ".... The question whether these constitute products of the printing industry depends on the facts whether in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Refineries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1943Tri(Delhi)
1.The short point for consideration in these matters is as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide them and if so in a Special Bench or the concerned Regional Bench.2. The matters arise out of revision petitions filed before the Central Government.3. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 35-P (2), the proceedings were transferred to the Tribunal to be heard as if they were appeals, from the stage at which they were.4. The provision relating to an appeal before the Tribunal on its constitution in Section 35-B read as follows- "Section 35B-(1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- 5. But then Section 35B was amended by the Finance Act, 1984. By the amendment, a proviso reading as under was added- "Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in Clause (b) if suc...
Tag this Judgment!Goodwill Refrigeration and Spare Parts Supply Co. Vs. Sales Tax Office ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]61STC60(Delhi)
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Goodwill Refrigeration & Spare Parts Supply Co., carrying on its business at Delhi has challenged the order dated 28th March, 1973, of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, passed under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, where by the application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that it has been filed 5 days after the period of limitation. 2. Mr. Bhagwati Pershad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), which provides for limitation for filing of application for revision is ultra virus the Act. The contention is that under the power to make rules as per section 26 of the Act, the Chief Commissioner had no authority to lay down the period of limitation for filing of the applications covered under sub-section (3) of section 20 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Sehgal Vs. Director of Education
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR147
Prakash Narain, C.J. (1) According to petitioners charges contemplated against respondent No. 4 and communicated to him and further charges which were still to be communicated after investigation were all such as would amount to breach of the code of conduct by respondent No. 4 and, thereforee, invited disciplinary action. It was for this reason that the Managing Committee took action u/s 8(4) read with Rule 115. In as much as prior approval of the Director was necessary to enforce suspension, this approval was sought by the communication dated 3.9.84. The approval was declined, as noticed earlier, by the Director's communication dated 11.9.84 In what circumstances and by what process such approval could be withheld or declined is the moot question. (2) As we read the Act and the relevant Rules, we are of the opinion that in case of unaided schools, the principles of internal management being by and large unfettered has to be observed. There is no doubt that there exists a regulatory p...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Khanna Vs. Inder Mohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT408; 1985(9)DRJ195; 1985RLR492
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the order dt. 28th August, 1980 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby his appeal against the dismissal of his objections, was also dismissed. (2) The respondent Shri Inder Mohan lal is the owner-landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed an application under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here-in-after called ''the Act') for permission to create a limited tenancy in favor of the appellant for a period of two years w.e.f.l5thJuly,1976. In the application it was stated that the respondent has agreed to let out to the appellant, for the first time, on terms and conditions set out in proposed lease deed for two years subject to the grant of permission by the Court. The proposed agreement of lease and copy of plan of the premises was filed along with the application. He also made a statement before the Additional Rent Controller to the following effect :-- 'I do not require the premises...
Tag this Judgment!