Delhi Court March 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.
Bengal Rope Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT1068TriDel
1. Briefly the facts relating to this appeal are that the Department Officers on a visit on 14-6-1984 found that the appellants had been manufacturing and removing Jute rope assessable to duty under Item 18D of Central Excise Tariff without taking out a Central Excise licence and without following Central Excise formalities and thus evading duty on the goods - A quantity of 680 coils of rope wt. 13910 kg. valued Rs. 1 lakh were seized for action under the Rules. Following issue of Show Cause Notice and considering their reply thereto and hearing them in the matter, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I, passed the impugned order dated 11-6-1986. He accepted their defence that they had kept the Department informed of their manufacturing activity and held that the extended period for demanding duty cannot be invoked against them. But the other contraventions of the Act and Rules as made out in the Show Cause Notice were held to be established. The seized rope coils (provisionally ...
Surlux Diagnostics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC571Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant, importer, is aggrieved with the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Importer had imported "Cat Scanner Equipment" and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dt.1-3-1988. The Bill of Entry disclosed the value of the said item at Rs. 1,40,22,787.00 CIF. Alongwith the Bill of Entry, the importers had attached the following documents : (i) Invoice No. HH-001/90 dt. 24-3-1990 of M/s. Hightech Health Equipment Co., Hongkong. (ii) Insurance Certificate No. 15080322 (1064) dt. 30-3-1990 indicating the reference No. SDL/HH/29/80 relating to the goods imported. (v) Order confirmation No. CH. 001/90 dt. 14-3-1990 by M/s. High Tech Health Equipments Co., Hongkong. (vi) Packing list of M/s. High Tech Health Equipment Co., Hongkong relating to invoice No. NH-001/90 dt. 24-3-1990 indicating importer's reference number as SDL/HH/29/30. (vii) NMIC No. I/CC/5/88/397 dt. 25-5-1988 endorsed on application No. NMIC/1-88 dt. 15-4-1988 for CT-SE 600 Syner view Scann...
Santosh Tali Vs. Ram Nath Pasi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)995; 54(1994)DLT106; 1994(29)DRJ1
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Photographs have been filed by the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff wishes to file photographs. Let the photographs be filed along with index. (2) On 07.II.1989,byaiiapplicationunderOrder23Rule3 Civil Procedure Code .,suit for partition being Suit No. 1575 of 1988 was disposed, as having been withdrawn. (3) I.A.9267 of 1991 has been moved by the plaintiff in that suit, as she is being hindered in a Probate Petition pending before the District Judge, Delhi. (4) In view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code ., only lawful agreements will bind the parties. If the agreement that the probate petition will not be opposed is not lawful. that part of the agreement agreed to between the parties in the suit forpartition, will not bind either of the parties to the suit, and the District Judge before whom the Probate Petition is stated to be pending, will be in a position to either grant or refuse to grant probate of the Will. which is sought to be p...
Ashok Malhotra and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT110; 1994(28)DRJ634; 1994RLR239
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) What should the court do when, to borrow the expression of Krishna lyer J. in Moti Ram v. State of 'M.P. : 1978CriLJ1703 . a seeker is priced out of his liberty in the justice Market? This is the question. However, the facts first. (2) The petitioners apprehending arrest under sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code obtained an order for anticipatory bail but with a condition attached. Here is the relevant part of the order. 'ACCORDINGLY,I direct that applicants No. I to 3 shall deposit in a Nationalised Bank a sum ofRs.50,000.00 each, in the name of the trial court, within a week from today and on their doing so, I direct that in the event of arrest they be released on bail, in this case, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum ofRs.10,000.00 with a surety of like amount,each,to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO, subject to the condition that they shall surrender the Fdr before the 10 as directed above and shall join investigation as and when required. Applica...
Aroon Phospho Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC591Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the appellants M/s. Aroon Phospho Products Private Limited against the two impugned Order-in-Appeals passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. Brief facts leading to the present appeals are that the appellants filed their classification List No. 1/89-90 effective from 1-4-1989 for various products falling under Chapter 28 of CET, 1985 claiming full exemption of Rs. 15 lakhs and partial exemption for subsequent clearance as per Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. The same was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise after usual adjudication proceedings vide his order-in-original No.VC/TH-III/17-304/Aroon/89/1435, dated 12-3-1990. Against that order of the Assistant Collector the Revenue filed the appeal (application in Form E.A. III) before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, who vide his order-in-appeal No. ADN/66/91/B-III dated 22-8-1991 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and allowed the appea...
Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT1047TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment in November, 1991 spare parts for their furnace burner installed in their HCL Plant. They claimed assessment of the goods as parts of furnace burner sub-heading 8416.90 CTA, 1975. However, the Asstt. Collector of Customs-Group 3, Bombay Custom House passed an Order-in-as-sessment dated 17-1-1992 classifying the goods under sub-heading 6815.10 CTA as non-electical articles of graphite and on the reasoning that in terms of Chapter Note l(a) to Chapter 84 CTA such articles falling under Chapter 68 were excluded from Chapter 84. The appellants claimed that the goods imported being of artificial graphite will not fall under Heading 68.15 which covers only natural graphite was rejected. The appeal against the Asstt. Collector's order was also rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay in the impugned Order dated 7-4-1992.2. Shri R. Subramaniam, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants argued that Heading 68.15 CTA covers art...
Rajasthan Explosives and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC183Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of Detonators and Detonating fuses falling under Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Excisable goods falling under Tariff Item 68 were specified under Rule 56(1) as goods to which the proforma credit procedure was applicable and the appellants took credit of duty under Rule 56A on all the consignments of inputs received from their supplier M/s. I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd., Hyderabad during the period from 1-7-1985 to 28-2-1986 and again from 1-3-1986 to 15-4-1986 under the Modvat Scheme. M/s. I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. revised the prices of their product upward w.e.f. 16-4-1985 and submitted a revised price list on 26-3-1986 which was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad on 26-5-1986. M/s. I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. paid the differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,00,698.00 P. accruing due to upward revision of prices of inputs supplied to the appellants during the period from 1-7-1985 to 26-3-1986 and 16-...
Raghbir Singh JaIn Vs. Hansam Industrial Corporation and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1045; 1994(1)ARBLR473(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT84; 1994(28)DRJ659
Mr. Mahinder Narain, J.1. The plaintiff states that he is the owner of the mark 'KIWI' and is using it in conjunction with the numeral '999'. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are carrying on business in Vadodara, and that they sell their goods under the name 'HANSAM'. It is also asserted that the defendants use the numeral '555' in conjunction with their goods. 2. Kiwi is a bird. Its habitat is Australia. One of the places the word 'KIWI' is to be found in India, is on a shoe polish container. 3. The numerals '999' and '555' have been used upon the goods in past. In conjunction with the works 'State Express' for cigarette for more than 50 years. There cigarettes bearing the words 'State Express 999' and 'State Express 555' were freely available in India till the import restrictions came into being. Thereafter these cigarettes only exist in the unauthorised market, and are sold by those who manage them to acquire from confiscated goods shops, or from smugglers...
Jaswant Rai Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR377(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT854
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is a petition under Sections 14, 17 & 29 of the Arbitration Act for issue of a direction to respondent No.2 to file the award and to make the same a rule of the Court. (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: that the petitioner herein entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for the construction of Transit Camp at Pandav Nagar. The above said contract contained an arbitration clause to the effect that in case of disputes in between the parties the same were to be referred to arbitration. The disputes arose in between the parties and the same were referred to respondent No. 2 Shri S.C.Gupta for adjudication. Shri S.C.Gupta i.e. respondent No.2 made and published his award on June 27, 1990. It has thus been prayed that the said award be made a rule of the Court. (3) The award was filed before this Court on January 7,1991. The notice of the filing of the award was served on the petitioner on January 22,1991. The petitioner, ho...
Lucky Home Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shanti Develope ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1014; 1994(1)ARBLR370(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT465; 1994(29)DRJ117
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a petition filed on behalf of M/s. Lucky Home Co-operative Group Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner society') under Sections 5. 8. 11, 12 and 31 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 against M/s. Shanti Developers & Promoters (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractor') and Shri A. Sankaran. the arbitrator and in this petition it has been prayed that the authority of the arbitrator be revoked and another arbitrator, preferably a retired judge of this Court he appointed for adjudication of the claims and counter claims of the parties. Along with the aforesaid petition, die petitioner society had also filed an application bearing is No. 9548/92 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 31st July, 1992, it was directed that the arbitrator would not make and publish the award and lie would proceed with the matter and the petitioner society may also participate in such proceedings. Notice of this petition was gi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »