Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 8 of about 144 results (0.020 seconds)Cadila Laboratories Ltd. Vs. the Customs, Excise and (Gold) Control Ap ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ207; 1995RLR270
D.P. Wadhawa, J.(1) Petitioner, a public limited company, seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction for quashing the order dated 13 December 1993 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (The `CEGAT' for short) and seeks a further direction to Cegat to hear and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner without insisting on any pre-deposit of the duty of the excise under the provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (for short `the Act'). (2) Against an order dated 19 March 1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise Baroda, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Cegat and also filed an application under section 35F seeking stay of the deposit of the duty as well as the penalty. The Collector by his order assessed the duty payable by the petitioner at over Rs.42.39 lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs.30 Lakhs on the petitioner. The Cegat by the impugned order directed the petitioner to deposit whole of the duty...
Tag this Judgment!By Ford Leasing Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT623
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-company is challenging the impugned order dated 20/24.5.1994 (Annexure-D) made by the State Commission (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application filed in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/company under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act)'.(2) It is also prayed that the complaint of respondent No. 3 made against the petitioner/company as well as the warrants issued by the State Commission for the arrest of the Chairman of the petitioner company by the impugned order bequashed.(3) Further, it is prayed that a declaration be issued that Section 27 of the Act is ultra virus and, that in the alternative the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act are governed by the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of the provision made in Section 4 of Sub-section 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Suri and Suri Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT129; (1995)110PLR5
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) ADMIT.COUNSEL for both the parties agree that the petition be heard and disposed of today itself.(2) The petitioner feeling aggrieved against some observations made in an order passed on 13.9.1993 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi while dismissing its appeal and affirming an order passed on 26.9.1992 by Shri D.S. Pawaria,Sub Judge, Delhi has questioned the same in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.(3) A preliminary objection was raised by learned Counsel for the respondent as regards maintainability of the petition for quashing the order in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India due to other adequate And efficacious remedy available namely a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(4) A suit was filed against the petitioner by the respondent for grant of a decree of injunction. Along with the suit an application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Milton Cycle Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)380
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A. M. :The assessed is in appeal against order dt. 7th Nov., 1989 of the learned CIT(A).2. The first ground of appeal is general.3. Second ground of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 8,104 being depreciation on houses purchased from Housing Board, Haryana on hire purchase basis. The learned CIT(A) noted that whereas the assessed had taken this ground of appeal before him, there was no mention of this addition in the order of assessment. It was explained that the claim on this account was made in the revised return filed on 5th Dec., 1983 but the said claim was not considered by the Assessing Officer (AO). The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessed had already lost as this issue right up to the Tribunal stage in earlier years and the issue was pending before the Hon'ble High Court. All the same, the learned CIT(A) in the circumstances, directed the AO to consider the claim made by the assessed after giving the assessed an...
Tag this Judgment!Multi Metals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC670Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Multi Metals Limited, Heavy Industrial Area, Kansua Road, Kota (Rajasthan), have filed an appeal being aggreived from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Multi Metals Limited had entered into a contract with M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited, Dhampur, for conversion of old 70/30 Brass Tubes into new tubes, and the party supplied old brass tubes weighing 3444 Kgs which were received on 31-1-1981 and the same were manufactured by them out of old brass tubes and despatched to the party vide Gate Pass No. 36, dated 23-2-1981 on payment of Central Excise duty. It was contended before the Assistant Collector that no duty was to be paid as the old brass tubes were converted into new tubes by the assessee and duty was already paid on old brass tubes.They also quoted Central Excise Notification No. 213/63-C.E., dated 28-12-1963 as amended which exempted pipes and tubes of copper falling under sub-item 3 of Item No....
Tag this Judgment!Nitshi Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC320Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-original dtd. 21-1-1992 passed by Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. By this order, the ld.Collector has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 36,92,424.18 said to be short paid during the period 1986-87 to 1990-91 (upto 7-9-1990) under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. He has also confirmed duty demand amounting to Rs. 8141.06 payable on the shortage detected on 7-9-1990 and which had since been debited by the party under PLA entry No. 10 dtd. 7-9-1990 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(i) proviso of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.A penalty of Rs. one lakh has also been imposed under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The facts of the case are that the officers of Central Excise Anti Evasion Branch, Central Excise Collectorate, New Delhi visited the factory premises of the appellants on 7-9-1990 and...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Saraswathi Stores
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC214Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 7-5-1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of 'Cassettes' falling under Item 59 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were also receiving gramophone records from M/s.Music India Ltd. which were manufactured by the latter from master-discs supplied by the appellants(Should be "Respondents" - Ed.).The gramophone records received by the appellants(Should be "Respondents" - Ed.) from M/s. Music India Ltd., Bombay were sold at a higher price under their own brand name. The appellants were served with a show cause notice alleging that the value of the records obtained by them from M/s. Music India Ltd., Bombay for sale after affixation of their brand name was required to be added to the value of goods produced and cleared by them from M/s. Saraswathi Stores for the purpose of computing the value of goods cleared for the purpose of Notification No, 83/83, dated 1-3-1983. The show ...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC219Tri(Delhi)
1. These six appeals arise from three orders in original passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi involving a common issue viz. confiscation of perforating machines under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposing penalties on the three companies concerned and the Director of each firm, besides recovering customs duty on the perforating machines in question. The cases were argued together by Shri L.P. Asthana, learned advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellants while Shri M.M. Mathur, learned Joint Chief Departmental Representative appeared for the respondent Collector. In view of the commonness of the issues involved and the common arguments by the respective sides, we are passing this common order.2. Explaining the facts of the case in the appeal relating to M/s.Northern Plastics Limited, Shri Asthana stated that they have been charged with having unlawfully acquired 25 perforating machines which were confiscated. Option was, however, given for their redemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT283TriDel
1. While dismissing an SLP No. 9759 of 1994 filed by the applicants against Allahabad High Court order, in this matter, the Supreme Court in its order dated 30-5-1994 directed the Tribunal to hear and decide the main appeal filed by the applicants within a month as far as possible. Earlier, the applicants had challenged before the Allahabad High Court two orders of the Tribunal dated 18-10-1993 and 24-3-1994.By the order of 18-10-1993, the Tribunal had ordered that Department's application dated 7-4-1992 for modification and withdrawal of Tribunal's order dated 29-4-1992 granting stay of duty in favour of present applicants of Rs. 1,52,89,588, be reheard on merits. By the order dated 24-3-1994 on rehearing the Department's application for modification of the stay order, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the Department, recalled the Tribunal's stay order dated 29-1-1992 and posted the stay application for hearing on merits afresh.When these two orders were challenged before...
Tag this Judgment!Samyukta Bharat Housing Development Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Smrithi G ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)251; 1995(1)ARBLR161(Delhi); 57(1995)DLT653
Usha Mehra, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 10th November, 1989 passed by the Registrar primarily on the ground that the dispute having once referred to the sole arbitration of Additional Registrar thereafter the Registrar could not have withdrawn the reference from the said Arbitrator without the consent of the parties. Secondly, time for making and publishing the award had already expired and, thereforee, without the consent of parties arbitration proceedings could not continue. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the counsel for the parties, brief facts have to be understood. The petitioner vide its application dated 1st November, 1985 approached the Registrar to settle his dispute with the Society. This request was made in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Society. The Registrar pursuance to the request made by the petitioner appointed his Additional Registrar ...
Tag this Judgment!