Delhi Court February 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.
Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT361TriDel
1. These two appeals, namely, one against the order dated 26-10-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad and another dated 3-7-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad involved the same issue i.e. demand of differential duty on ripped tobacco and were argued together and are disposed of by this common order. The facts, briefly, are that the appellants, herein, are manufacturers of Panama brand cigarettes classifiable under Heading 2403.11 of C.E.T.A., 1985. The raw-material used by them in the manufacture of cigarettes is cut tobacco classifiable under sub-heading 2404.13. Prior to 1-3-1989, the appellants had been bringing cut tobacco on payment of duty under Notification 356/86 dt. 24-6-1986.According to this notification, cut tobacco for the use in the manufacture of machine-rolled cigarettes is leviable to duty @ Rs. 10 paise per kg. This notification was amended on 1-3-1989 adding the proviso, "provided that where the use of cut tobacco...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indo Java and Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)49ITD647(Delhi)
1. The appeals of the assessee for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were disposed of by a consolidated order dated 28th February, 1992.Reference applications under Section 256(1) were filed by the CIT, Delhi-VII, New Delhi. The said reference applications were notified by the Registry as barred by limitation. Accordingly opportunity was given to the applicant for explaining the delay. The applicant did not file any explanation for the delay nor was any application filed for condo nation of delay. Reference applications were accordingly rejected as barred by limitation.2. The revenue has filed application requesting for recalling the order dated 20th October, 1992 on the ground that the reference applications filed by the revenue were not barred by limitation as the order of the Tribunal had been served on the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax who had forwarded the same to the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax.Whereas the date of service of the order upon the Chief Commissioner o...
Lamba Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1994Delhi495; (1994)108PLR56
Sat Pal, J.1. This petition has been filed on behalf of M/s. Lamba Steel and Alloys P. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi through General Manager Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'DESU') under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition, the petitioner has prayed for referring the following disputes to the arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause 25 of the agreement between the parties. '(a) Whether the provisional supplementary bill dated 20.12.1990 with retrospective effect from February 1987 to November 1990 for Rs. 2,06,03,363.70 is valid and in accordance with law. (b) Whether the Respondent could raise the provisional supplementary bill dated 20.12.1990 without giving show cause notice and an opportunity to the Petitioner. (c) Whether the provisional supplementary bill dated 20.12.1990 could be raised on the imaginary formula as worked out by the Respondent in the impug...
Avs Travels and Tours Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)768; 53(1994)DLT636; 1994(28)DRJ526
A.B. Saharya, J. (1) The basic question that has arisen in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether order dated 24th of April 1993 passed by the respondent Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the IAC) terminating sales agency agreement of the petitioner can be sustained in law. (2) The petitioner is a registered partnership firm of three brothers, namely, Ajay Kumar Moria. Vijay Kumar and Sandeep Kumar Moria. They are the sons of R.L. Moria, who is working as Superintendent in the Stores Department of the IAC. By a letter dated 27th of November 1991, the Iac appointed the petitioner-firm, as its sales agent at Noida, on standard terms and conditions contained in the agreement known and described as Domestic Passenger Sales Agency Agreement. (3) According to the petitioner, the firm has been acting as the authorised sales agent with full satisfaction to the passengers and great deal of profit to the Iac, and there is not even a single c...
Damodar Dass Vs. Mehrauli Dehat Transport Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: 1994RLR214
Usha Maha, J.(1) By this common order both applications one by petitioner & other by L.R.s of respondent No. 2 are disposed of. (2) The legal heirs of deceased respondent 2 in their application No. 418/90 have sought restraint order against the petitioner and his sons respondents 3 & 4 from surrendering tenancy premises bearing No. 18/1, Mehrauli, New Delhi. In the cross application being C A. No. 587/92, the petitioner has sought a similar direction against the legal heirs of respondent No. 2, wherein he has prayed that the two sons of late respondent No 2, Mr Ram Kumar Sharma have been misusing the company premises by running tea stall and that the landlord Shri Ram Dayal had been complaining about the same. That in collusion with Mr. J.N. Bakshi and Mr. Ram Dayal, co-owners of the property, the respondent 2 and now his legal representatives are going to surrender the possession of the premises. Respondent 2 was going to concede the eviction petition filed by the landlord u/S. 14(l)(...
J.S. Arneja Vs. National Co-operative Consumers Federation of India Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi44; 1994(28)DRJ546
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J. (1) The petitioner who was appointed as Manager (Industries and Export) in the National Co-Operative Consumers Federation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'N.C.C.F.'). joined on 22nd January, 1976. His services were terminated on 23.2.1985. The petitioner has challenged that the order terminating his services is wholly arbitrary and manifestly erroneous. (2) Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are recapitulated as under:- (3) The petitioner who was appointed as Manager (Industries and Export) in the 'N.C.C.F.', joined on 22nd January, 1976, in the pay-scale of Rs. 1100-1600, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 1500-2000. (4) The petitioner was promoted as Chief Manager from 19th March, 1983 in the pay- scale of Rs. 1925-2450 (since revised as Rs. 2070-2745) and has been continuing till date in the same pay-scale. The petitioner has all along been working in the Head Office. (5) The petitioner's services were terminated b...
Manoj @ Mannu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)791; 1994(2)Crimes345; 54(1994)DLT23; 1994RLR192
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) What should the Court do when the accused claims to be a Juvenile and the other side challenges the same? This, in short, is the question.Now, the facts.(2) Manoj Kumar is accused of having committed offences under Sections 302,307,120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He moved an application that he being below sixteen years of age at the time of the alleged commission ofoffence, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 were attracted. The learned trial Judge looked into the application and so also at the petitioner and rejected the prayer holding that he appeared to be above the prescribed age. Thus the fate of the application was sealed by what was a mere visual examination.(3) Should a Judge, in a matter like this straighten his stooping shoulders, lift his head hurried otherwise deep into the mouth-eaten files, adjust his heavy framed looking glasses and peeping through them with his tired eyes adjudge, and proclaim the age of an accused(...
Devender Kumar and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)781; 54(1994)DLT68; 1994(28)DRJ503; (1994)107PLR5; 1994RLR202
P.N. Nag, J.(1) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the revised demand letters dated 13.2.1992, 14.2.1992 and 17.2.1992, Annexures P-l, P-2 and P-3 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners. (2) Facts in substance set out in the petition are that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent No.2 for allotment of certain shops to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, petitioners being Scheduled Castes applied for the allotment of such .he shops/stalls to them. In pursuance of Draw of Lots held by respondent No. 1, petitioners were allotted shops. Thereafter vide allotment-cum -demand letters dated 18.11.1988, the respondent No. 1 called upon them to deposit 25 percent of the reserve price of the shop/ stall allotted to them within 60 days. As per terms of the Scheme, the balance premium of 75 percent was to be paid in 24 equal monthly Installments carrying interest at the rate of 6% per annum, after the possession of the shops had been handed over to th...
Reckitt and Colman of India Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC171Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants manufacture, inter alia, Robin Liquid Fabric Whitener 75 ml (RLFW). They submitted a classification list effective from 10-3-1986 classifying RLFW under Chapter 32, Heading 32.06 and sub-heading 3206.19. A show cause notice dated 26-8-1986 was issued to them to show cause as to why the said RLFW should not be considered as auxiliary washing preparation under Heading 3402.90. The appellants submitted their reply and the said show cause notice was dropped by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 29-10-1986 after considering the detailed reply and hearing the appellants herein. The said show cause notice in its allegation for classification under Heading 3402.90 stated the ground as follows :- "... inasmuch as the said product is not used as colouring matter and used for auxiliary washing of the fabrics which results in brightening the fabrics..." 1.2 A sample of the product RLFW was also drawn. Report of the Chemical Examiner, Custom House, Madras is as follows...
Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT833TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 10-4-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether Vinyl Floor Coverings manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under 22F(4) as claimed by the appellants or under 22G of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act as held by the Department.3. The relevant Tariff Entries No. 22F and 22G are as follows :- * * * * * * * 4. Samples of the products were drawn by the Department and report by the Deputy Chief Chemist indicating the percentage of composition is as under :- "Sample is a cut-piece made of Asbestos Sheet coated on one side with PVC Synthetic Resin containing pigments, fillersr plasticisers, etc. It is further embossed on same side. Percentage composition on sample is as under :-Asbestos Sheet : 39.1%Inorganic fillers : 4.2%Plasticiser : 22.6%Balance (containing PVC Resin, : 32.2%Stabiliser, organic compound, etc.) 5. Shri T. Gunasekaran, learned Ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »