Delhi Court December 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT155TriDel
1. Both the appeals relate to alleged excesses and shortage of TV sets detected during the course of stock verification in the appellant's factory on 25-9-1986 and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. E/2545/89-NRB arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad confiscating 131 TV sets valued at Rs. 5,89,325/- found in excess and unaccounted for in the statutory records and levying duty on 58 TV sets valued at Rs. 2,53,625/- removed clandestinely without payment of duty and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of confiscation and a penalty of Rs. 12,500/-.E/2546/89-NRB has been preferred against the order of the same adjudicating authority confiscating 117 TV sets found in excess and levying duty on 50 TV sets removed clandestinely and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. E/2545/89-NRB relates to Unit EF III of the appellant, while the other appeal relates to the Uni...
Collector of Customs Vs. Emco Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT191TriDel
1. The issue for determination in the above appeal is eligibility or otherwise of Electronic repair system imported by the appellants to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 185/76 dated 2-8-1976.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported a system for Electronics repair MIT-4 MATR-3025257 under Bill of Entry of 8th November, 1989. The goods were allowed to be cleared in terms of Notification No. 185/76. Subsequently, as it was noticed that the benefit of the notification was not available to the goods, a show cause notice was issued proposing levy of duty of Rs.23 lakhs. The Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of notification and confirmed the demand. The lower Appellate authority confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector holding that Notification No. 185/76 is applicable to the goods of the nature specified in Article II of the Geneva Convention dated 7-11-1952 and did not cover the goods of the nature specified in Article III thereof und...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Victor Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)(52)LC430Tri(Delhi)
1. Heard both sides. There are two issues involved in this appeal.Firstly whether the review order signed by the Collector on 28.2.1986 was in time as contended by the department in this appeal or whether the same was time barred as held by the lower appellate authority.Secondly whether the rigid P.U. Foam manufactured in situ is dutiable 2. As regards the first issue it is contended by the respondent that the order was signed on 26.2.1985, though issued on 6.3.1985 and hence the review order dt. 28.2.1986 is time barred. It was contended by the department that the order was issued on 6.3.1985 which should be taken as the relevant date. Alternatively it was pleaded that as seen from the endorsement of the typist on the last page of the Order-in-Original, the order was typed on 28.2.1985 and hence the same could not have been signed on 26.2.1985 as contended by the respondent.Collector of Central Excise v. MM. Rubber Co. reported at The ratio of this decision is that the limitation of ...
Meera Devi and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT62
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 27 Rules 5-B and 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in this application it has been prayed that the Secretary of the Delhi Development Authority (for short called DDA), who is the defendant in this case, be directed to appear in person and depose about the service of the notice on 14th March, 1985 as alleged in the written statement filed on behalf of the DDA. It has further been prayed that endeavor be made for settlement of the matter amicably and the possession of the said plot bearing No. BM-52 (Paschimi) Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme Delhi be given to the plaintiffs. (2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs were the highest bidder for the purchase of plot bearing No. BM-52 (Paschimi) Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, Delhi in the public auction held by the Dda on 15th October, 1984. The bid price was Rs. 8.1.4 lakhs. The case of the plaintiffs is ...
Sparsh Samaj Kalyan Samiti (Regd) and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)961; 53(1994)DLT194
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J. (1) This petition has been preferred by Sparsh Samaj Kalyan Samiti, and by Mr. S.K. Sahijpal, its President. It is incorporated in the petition that petitioner No. 1 is a social organisation crusading against the socio-economic and political corruption with an objective to preserve the basic philosophy and to uphold the dignity and majesty of the Constitution of India. (2) The petition is directed against respondent No. 2 Mr. Anand Darbari, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Cement Corporation of India. It is mentioned in the petition that respondent No. 2 in league and collusion with other officers of the Cement Corporation of India, disposed of the sub-standard cement, manufactured by the Cement Corporation of India, vide office note dated 15.3.1991, prepared by Sales Officer Mr. A.D.Sharma. It is further stated that the said office note specifically mentioned that the said sub-standard cement to the tune of 31,000 bags i.e. 757.90 M.T. was rejected by the Delhi ...
New Bank of India and ors. Vs. Faridabad Manufacturing (Engg. Products ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)65; 53(1994)DLT50; 1994(28)DRJ506
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is an application filed on behalf of M/s. Khandelwal & Company Private Limited and its two directors S/Shri Amir Chand Jain and Shubh Chand Jain under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and in this application the applicants have prayed for recalling/modifying the order dated 28th April, 1992 for opening and closing of the locks put by the local commissioner at plot No.68, Industrial Area. Sector-6, Faridabad (Haryana) and for direction to the plaintiff bank to pay damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs.38,256.00 of the said premises before the goods and articles lying in the said premises are removed. The application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff bank in its reply to the application. (2) Briefly stated, the fads of the case are that the plaintiff bank has filed mortgage suit for recovery of Rs. 1.11,32,694.98 under Order 34 of the Code against M/s. Faridabad Manufacturing (Engineering Producls) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›