Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 1 of about 140 results (0.021 seconds)Ess Bee Packagers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT67TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Printed Plastic Films, Printed Laminates and Pouches made of Printed Laminates. On the basis of intelligence that they were removing excisable goods without obtaining Central Excise licence and without payment of Central Excise duty, the officers of the Directorate of Anti-Evasion searched their Registered Office and the factory premises and seized certain documents and 825 Kgs. of flexible laminated printed polyster film valued at Rs. 1,07,250/- and other finished goods/Pouches valued at Rs. 30,510/- and semi-finished goods weighing 779.200 Kgs. They also recorded the statement of Shri S.R. Maheshwari, Director of the company who in his statement dated 1-8-1989 stated that the appellants had not filed any declaration seeking exemption from licensing control. He also confirmed that the value of the good...
Tag this Judgment!Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(54)LC221Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an Appeal against the Order of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh dt. 26.2.1993.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the Appellants are manufacturer of C.R.Strips and the Modvat Credit is available to them on inputs namely H.R.coils, CR coils and ship strips. He further stated that the Appellants are purchasing inputs from M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO). The supplies are received from their stockyard at Ludhiana being run by consignment agent M/s. Salig Ram Shiv Prasad, Ludhiana.3. M/s. TISCO has been permitted to issue certificates regarding payment of Central Excise duty on delivery challans-cum-invoice prescribed under Rule 57G(2) as duty paying documents.4. In this connection, they would like to refer to Trade Notice No.68/86 dt. 23.12.1986 and No. 33/92 dt. 4.8.1992.5. The Deptt. has sought to deny the benefit on the ground that the document issued by M/s. Salig Ram Shiv Prasad, Ludhiana, was not acceptable as a duty paying document.6. However, it was their con...
Tag this Judgment!Farinni Eleven Up Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(54)LC219Tri(Delhi)
1. The matter was called. Shri A.K. Singhal, the Ld. JDR is present on behalf of the Respondent. None for the Appellants. The appellants vide their letter dated 8th February, 1994 have requested for the disposal of the Miscellaneous Application on merits. Shri A.K. Singhal wants time for ascertaining from the Collector as to whether the matter has been readjudicated or not and if so, what is the present position. The Bench pointed out that vide Order No. A/526/83 dated 9th November, 1983, the Bench had directed the Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,299.68 and this amount was deposited by the Appellants in terms of the stay order. The Bench pointed out that in a recent decision of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana and Ors. reported in 1994 (1) ELT1 (S.C.) : 1994 (51) ECR 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in Paras 8,9,10 & 11 as under: 8. The judgment in the case of Jain Spinners applies to a case where excise duty has been d...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chandra Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT582TriDel
1. The present Rectification of mistake application emerges from the Tribunal's order No. Misc. 357/87-NRB and Final Order No. A. 287/89-NRB dated the 25th July, 1989. Shri B.D. Bhagat, the learned JDR, has appeared on behalf of the applicant/respondent. He reiterated the contentions made in the application and pleaded that though 864 witnesses have been mentioned in the order, actually 110 persons were relied upon by the Department. He pleaded that the Tribunal may modify its order by substituting the figure 110 against the figure of 864.Shri Bhagat also pleaded that the Member (Technical) Shri P.C. Jain to whom the point of difference was referred in para 8 of the order has mentioned that "Having gone through the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that a serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the appellants if they are not given the opportunity to cross-examine the statements of persons on whom the Department relies. Accordingly I agree with the learned Judicial Member...
Tag this Judgment!Master Gokul Mahana (Minor) Through V.K. Mahana Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi320; 1994(28)DRJ563; ILR1994Delhi401
ORDERR. C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner a minor student acting through his father has filed this petition on 17-8-1993 seeking a Writ of Certiorari setting aside the order of the respondent No. 3 an educational institution detaining the petitioner in the XI class treating him not entitled to promotion to XII class and writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his studies in XII class and also allow him to appear in CESE Board examination of XII standard.2. The respondent No. 3. The Army Public School is an educational institution of which the respondent No. 4 is the Principal. The respondent No. 1, UOI has been unnecessarily joined as a parly to the petition presumably under a misapprehension of the petitioner that the UOI (through its Department of Education) had something to do with the institution. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, through Director of Education also appears to be an unnecessary party in view of the stand taken by the o...
Tag this Judgment!Saw Pipes Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi308
Sat Pal, J.1. This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition the petitioner has prayed that the disputes mentioned in para 17 of the petition be referred to arbitration in terms of arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and respondents have filed their written statement and in the written statement it has been stated that there are no bonafide disputes and differences between the parties, which are referable to arbitration. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I am of the view that the disputes mentioned in para 17 of the petitioner are referable to arbitration in terms of arbitration clause. The view I have taken finds support from a judgment of this court in the case of M/s. Hari Steel & General Industries v. Municipal Corporation of...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Parsad Arya Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)954; 1994(29)DRJ19
K. Shivshankar Bhat, J.(1) In all these writ petitions, petitioners Seek the benefit of Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (earlier known as Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. 1972)-and referred hereinafter as the Scheme. Their main plea is that the pension under the scheme ought to be granted with effect from 1.8.1980. (2) These petitioners assert that they or their predecessors participated in the Aryasamaj Movement of 1938-39 against the Government of the then Nizam of Hyderabad and consequently suffered imprisonment and thus they are entitled to the grant of pension under the Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. 1980 (same as 'the Scheme'). They are also aggrieved by the non-consideration or the rejection of the applications on the. ground that the applications were filed after 30.6.1986. It is unnecessary for us to refer and consider the various contentions raised in the writ petitions, as the questions are fully covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme C...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Governor and ors. Vs. Mahabir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1037; 53(1994)DLT773; (1994)107PLR24
K.S. Bhat, J. (1) There are several writ petitions involving the same question as to whether the permit of the stage carriage vehicle could be cancelled or suspended, if the vehicle causes any serious accident affecting the limb or life of any human being. As an illustrative case we may refer to the accident in which Bus No.DL-IP-2798 was involved. A young boy died in the accident. A criminal case was registered in the Police Station and at the same time on 6.4.1993, a show cause notice was issued to the permit holder (first respondent) to submit his Explanationn as to why his permit should not be cancelled/suspended and the bus be impounded. The permit holder replied stating that he had complained against the students of Haryana Shakti Senior Secondary School, Khanjhawla with the Principal of the School about their illegal activities and inspire of this the school authorities did not take any action and that the boy fell down from the front gate of the school and was crushed under the...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Asha Ambekar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994RLR211
M. Mohan, J. (1) [ED. Facts : Husband of respdt. was employed in LIC. He expired suddenly on 11.8.87. Respdt. sought appointment on compassionate ground but was refused due to over-age. Then her son applied. Clause 4 of Circular of Lic of 20.1.87 which is 'where any member of the family is employed, no appointment may be made on compassionate grounds' stood against him and his request was declined on 21.10.91. He filed W.P. High Court ordered his appointment. Lic appealed to Supreme Court.] After detailing above facts, judgment proceeds : (2) Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. No doubt Shakespeare said in Merchant of Venice : 'THE quality of mercy is not stain d; It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place ben...
Tag this Judgment!Prabha Construction (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shan Trilochan Singh and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT652; 1994(28)DRJ638
Sat Pal, J. (1) is 7750/93 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and in this application it has been prayed that the defendants be restrained from alianating, selling, transferring or parting with possession of the suit property bearing No.K-24-B.Houz Khas Enclave.NewDelhi-110016 consisting of the land and structure thereon. On 9.9.93 this application came up for hearing and notice of this application was issued to the defendants and the defendants were restrained from transferring, alienating and parting with possession of the said property. During the pendency of the case an application bearing No.1A 10179/93 was filed on behalf of the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the order granting ex-parte injunction on 9.9.93. Reply to this application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and are joinder has also been fielded on behalf of the applicant. Si...
Tag this Judgment!