Delhi Court November 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT171TriDel
1. The appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras in order-in-original No. 29/91 dt. 6-9-1991.2. By this order, the ld. Collector has confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,19,05,834 (Rs. One crore nineteen lakhs five thousand eight hundred thirty four only) and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for alleging contravention of Central Excise Rules.3. The question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is the correct classification of the goods which the department is terming it as "Collecting Electrodes Sections and parts and accessories of LC Motor Vehicles". The appellants are describing these goods in the classification list filed by them as "angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel not further worked than cold-formed or cold-finished". In respect of this item, the further description given by the appellants in the classification list is "Guide-channel sections, angles/shapes ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Delta HamlIn Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC454Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein were declared a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, Secretariat for Industrial Approvals vide their letter dated 18-5-1992 for the manufacture of Relays/Read Switches upto an annual capacity of 3 million pieces. Notification 13/81-Cus. dt. 9-2-1981 allows import of capital goods, raw materials and components for production by 100% EOU free of duty. The importers i.e. EOU are required to carry out the manufacturing in Customs bond and for this purpose the respondents were granted licence by Customs Bonded Warehouse Under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. They also executed a bond Under Section 59 ibid.Besides the import of capital goods, raw materials and components, the respondents were found to have imported and cleared free of duty spares, namely, Rhodium Platinum Heaters and spares for Coil Winders valued at Rs. 95,069.48 during the period...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Tube Investment of India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT291TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether shutter lath sections, guide channels and bottom plates manufactured by the appellants and used in the manufacture of shutter are classifiable under Heading No.7216.20 which covers "Angles, shapes ar sections of iron or non-alloy steel - not further worked than cold formed or co - finished." as claimed by the appellants or under heading No. 73.08 which covers, inter alia, "shapes, sections, tubes and the like, prepared for the use structures of Iron or Steel as claimed by the Department.2. The learned Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has o served as under "The sections, viz. shutter lath, guide channel and bottom plate manufactured by the assessee find use in the manufacture of shutters. Heading 7216 covers sections and 7308 covers sections prepared for use in structures of iron or steel. In this case, the products are sections prepared for use in the structures of iron or steel i.e. shutters by the shutter manufacturers." 3....
Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)49ITD402(Delhi)
1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee against order dated 17-8-1992 and 23-11-1990 of the learned CIT (Appeals). Both these appeals are, therefore, consolidated and disposed of by this common order.2. First ground of appeal is against initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the IT Act. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual having income from trading in wool, manufacturing and sale of wool tops and yarn. In his case, original assessment was framed under Section 143(1) on 31-3-1986 accepting the returned loss of Rs. 92.3. Action under Section 132 was taken against the assessee when his business and residential premises were searched on 29-8-1986 and certain loose papers seized. One such paper (given No. 97 of Document No. 5), contain entries aggregating to Rs. 8,06,900. For want of satisfactory explanation from assessee regarding the nature of the paper and entries recorded thereon, the Assessing Officer believed that income chargeabl...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT594; 1994(28)DRJ30; [1994(68)FLR997]; ILR1994Delhi21; 1994LabIC733; 1994RLR234; 1994(1)SLJ240(Delhi)
Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. This bunch of writ petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi raises a common question of law. The respondent-workmen moved an application under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming arrears of wages at the same rate paid to the regular employees working in the same category on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. The petitioner challenges the maintainability of this claim in proceedings under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited. It is a proceeding in the nature of execution and the workman is entitled to apply provided he is entitled to a benefit whether monetary or non-monetary which is capable of being computed in terms of money. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents who are daily rated/casual workers though may...
Jamna Auto Industries Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT585
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had been awarded a contract for supply of goods on February 12, 1973 and the petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee of Rs.27,000.00 as security for due performance of the said contract. The respondents invoked the said bank guarantee by issuing-letter dated July 19, 1974 (Annexure P3) and required the Manager of the Central Bank of India to pay the amount of the bank guarantee to the respondents. It was mentioned in this letter that the petitioner had defaulted in the contract inasmuch as period for delivery of the goods was extended up to May 15, 1974 but the petitioner had failed to complete the supplies before that date and thus, the contract had been cancelled at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Simultaneously the respondents had issued letter to the petitioner cancelling the contract as the petitioner had failed to make supplies before the extended date of delivery mentioning that the time was the essence of the...
Universal Cylinder Ltd. Vs. Gurcharan Singh Rishi Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT29
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The facts need not. detain me for long. Major (Retired) Gurcharan Singh Rishi Raj filed a petition under Section 14B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) for an order of eviction against his tenant M/s. Universal Cylinder Ltd. which is the petitioner before me. It may be noticed that Section 14B of the Act confers upon certain members of the Armed Forces etc. right to recover immediate possession of premises. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings Major (Retd.) Gurcharan Singh Rishi Raj moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to incorporate yet another ground of eviction enumerated in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Under the said clause an owner-landlord can seek eviction provided the premises had been let out for residential purpose and the same are required bonafide by him for his own residence and for the residence of his family members dependen...
A.S. Gahlout and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi69; 53(1994)DLT201
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This writ petition challenges the order dated: 16th April, 19.93 passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise his powers under section 31(7) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited is a 'financing bank' within .the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act and is duly registered as a society with the' Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. It is thus a co-operative society. In a co-operative society the general body of members is supreme and it has the final authority in all matters. However, the day to day functioning of the society is entrusted to delegates of members of the society chosen in accordance with the bye-laws of the society and the law. This smaller body generally known as managing committee or committee exercises the powers of the general body. This concept is statutorily recognised in Section 28 of the Act. The elections of the members of the Committee are normally...
Pamela Manmohan Singh Vs. Family Planning Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT161
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh, petitioner has, by way of this revision petition, challenged the order dated 29.9.1993 of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in which, an observation has been made with regard to the possession of the premises.(2) Family Planning Foundation, respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant with a prayer that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and/or forcibly from the premises No. 198, Golf Links, New Delhi or otherwise interfere with the peaceful physical possession of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid premises.(3) The suit was being contested by the defendant. An application under Order23 Rule I read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was moved by the plaintiff through Shri RajivNayyar, Advocate with a prayer that the suit may be permitted to be withdrawn.Another prayer was also made for being permitted to deposit the keys of the premises in Court. ...
Mohan Machines Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 1994(28)DRJ140
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) The Sales Tax Officer created a demand of Rs37,66,820.00 against the petitioner vide order dated 20th March, 1991. Against this order,the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Sales Tax and filed an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax vide order dated 9th September, 1991 directed the petitioner to deposit the entire levied amount and the compliance report was to be submitted before 10th October, 1991. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount, the appeal was dismissed in liming on 10th October, 1991.(2) Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax, Delhi and along with the appeal filed an application for dispensing the pre-deposit. The appeal and the application for dispensing with the pre-deposit have been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 8th October, 1992.(3) Still feeling aggrieved, the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »