Delhi Court November 1994 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.
Shankaria @ Shankar Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)946; 1995(1)Crimes112; 56(1994)DLT662; 1994(31)DRJ489
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called the Act) on two grounds. Let me refer to them first. Their dissection would follow later. (2) The appellant states that the learned Addition to sessions Judge has wrongly relied upon the report Ex. Public Witness 7/D made by Mr.C.L.Bansal, Senior Scientific Assistant, Central Forensic Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation. He submits that the said report being not by a Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of the Central or a State Forensic Laboratory and thus being not a statement under the hand of any of the experts mentioned in sub-section 4(e) of section 293 of the Code of Criminal procedure, it could not be taken to be admissible in evidence in view of the said provision of the Code and that once this portion is accepted it cannot be taken as established on the record that the substance recovered w...
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Dy. Cit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)53TTJ(Del)163
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A.M. :The assessed as also the Revenue are in appeal against order dt. 5th December, 1989, of the learned CIT(A).2. The only ground of appeal taken by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to identify the revenue expenditure incurred by the assessed-company from 16th March, 1985, to 30th April, 1985, and to allow deductions for the same in accordance with law even though the company had not been out into such shape that it could start functioning as business or manufacturing organisation and hence it had not been set up during the relevant accounting year. The relevant facts are that the assessed is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of motor cycles in collaboration with M/s Honda Motor Cycles of Japan. The company was incorporated on 19th January, 1984, and closed its books of accounts on 30th April, 1985. This is, thus, the first year of assessed's business. The AO disallowed the assessed...
Mistair Home Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC474Tri(Delhi)
1. In both the appeals, common question of facts and law is involved hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. E/2012/88-C : arises from the order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay by his order-in-original confirmed a demand of Rs. 66,960.41 for the period 1-4-1985 to 30-9-1985. The case of the department in the show cause notice dated 9-10-1985 is that the appellants were manufacturing "Hair Sprays" and clearing under TI 68 of the Schedule of the erstwhile Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 77/85-C.E. since amended. It is stated in the show cause notice that ACCE, Bombay-I by his order-in-original dated 12-8-1985 ordered for the classification of the said product under TI 14F of the said CET, instead of TI 68.3. The claim was resisted by the assessee, inter alia on the grounds that the product had all along been classified under Tariff ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ballarpur Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT574TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi has filed this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Reference Application under Section 35G(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, The order of the Tribunal No. A/4Q6/94-NRB, dated 22-4-1994 to which the Reference Application relates had been received on 26-5-1994. The Reference Application has been received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 10-8-1994. The delay beyond the normal permitted time limit of sixty days for the filing of Reference Application had been explained by the applicant Collector as due to the time taken for scrutiny of the records and reminders sent to Assistant Collector, Ambala. The time from 23-7-1994 to 5-8-1994 had been spent in review of the matter and consultation with the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I. The report of the Assistant Collector was received on 5-8-1994. The delay of 15 days from 26-7-1994 to 9-8-1994 has been explained to be on account of the consideration of the issue inv...
Ahmedabad Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT947TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.However, Shri P.M. Dave, Ld. Counsel for the appellants had requested for adjournment in his application dated 28-10-1994. For ready reference the said request is extracted as below in extenso :- The above appeal is fixed for hearing on 10-11-1994 by virtue of Order No. M-163/94-D, dated 6-10-1994. This date was fixed after taking into consideration my convenience. However, it went out of my mind that the first and second weeks of Nov. '94 are Diwali Holidays and I was to go out with my family. In these circumstances I request for an adjournment of the above hearing. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to the Hon'ble Tribunal and request to consider my prayer for adjournment on account of the above personal reason." 2. Shri M.K. Jain, Ld. SDR vehemently opposed the prayer for adjournment submitting that earlier the appeal was also dismissed for default of appearance and subsequently restored. He added that on th...
Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC387Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order issued on 10-1-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune.The background facts, as summoned up for the impugned order, are as follows : 2. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. (hereinafter called appellant) against the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad II Division, Auran-gabad demanding a duty of Rs. 66,49,829.00 from the appellants.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of toilet soaps and tooth powder which are manufactured in their factory at Aurangabad. The appellants filed price list and claimed certain deductions from the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared from their factory at Aurangabad. These deductions included distribution cost (warehousing expenses) and secondary packing. The appellants have depots and warehouses all o...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Aerolex Hose Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT711TriDel
1. At the outset, it was brought to our notice that this matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and was disposed of by the Order 810/88-C It was thereafter appealed against and the Honourable Supreme Court by its order dated January 30, 1990 set aside this order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh after passing appropriate orders on the application for additional evidence made by the respondents.2. Learned Counsel stated that since earlier its application had escaped the notice of this Bench because it was possibly mixed up, they are now filing a photocopy of the same with the request that it may be considered.3. Learned Counsel was accordingly heard with reference to this application in terms of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court.4. Learned Counsel stated that this is an application for taking additional evidence on record. This evidence is in the form of a certificate No. AT/TC/88/DRP, dated 26th May, 1988 issued by the Rubber Board in respect ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. V.K. Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC82Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur has filed the above-captioned 21 appeals being aggrieved from a common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disposing of 21 appeals. Since all the above-captioned appeals emerge from a common order and as such, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of electric generating sets/alternators, 1C engines and parts thereof and had filed classification lists claiming assessment under Heading 85.01 for alternators/generators whereas the Revenue has assessed the same under Heading 85.11. Show Cause Notices were issued by the Revenue authorities desiring them to Show Cause as to why their product Alternator (now described as AC Generators) in the aforesaid classification list may not be classified under sub-heading 8511 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and why the aforesaid classification list filed by them should not be modified under Rule 173B(...
Sh. Siri Ram Sharma and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: 56(1995)DLT684; ILR1995Delhi339
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. S/Sh. Siri Ram Sharma, Dharam Raj, Lekh Raj, Rajpal Singh, Suresh and Man Singh Rawat have been convicted of offences punishable under sections 436 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and for offence punishable under section 147 read with Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated October 25, 1988 and by an order of the even date, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rupees 2,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more under section 302 read with Section 149 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years for offence punishable under Section 147 read with Section 148 I.P.C. each with the direction that substantive sentences shall run concurrently and fine, if r...
Sarla Devi and ors. Vs. Daya Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT126
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) In a suit purporting to have been filed under Order37 of the Civil Procedure Code the defendants have been served. They have failed to put in appearance within the meaning of Order 37 Rule 2, Sub Rule 3. An application styled as under Section 148 Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code has been filed seeking condensation of delay in putting in appearance. The application has been opposed vehemently by the plaintiffs' Counsel submitting that the Court does not have jurisdiction to extend the time statutorily appointed for putting in appearance by the defendants.(2) It is not necessary to dispose of the contending contentions raised touching the application filed by the defendant because having heard the learned Counsel for the parties this Court has formed an opinion that the suit itself is not triable under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code and so the question of putting in any appearance and seeking leave to d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »