Delhi Court April 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.
Panjab Wool Combers Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT844TriDel
1. These two appeals arise out of the same impugned order of Collector (Appeals). The issue is whether scoured wool is an excisable commodity assessable to duty under Item 68 C.E.T. In the proceedings initiated against assessee/appellants, Punjab Wool Combers, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana, held scoured wool is classifiable under Item 68 CET and confirmed demand of duty thereon. On an appeal against the Assistant Collector's order the Collector (Appeals) held that scoured wool has a distinct name, character and use from greasy wool from which it is produced and he correctly classified as excisable goods under Item 68 CET. But the Collector (Appeals) found that the demand for duty was barred by limitation as the show cause notices had been issued beyond six months under Section 11A Central Excises and Salt Act and that evidence on record showed that the assessee could not be said to have suppressed facts from the Department. Punjab Wool Combers are now in appeal a...
income-tax Officer Vs. Anjaneya Cold Storage Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD51(Delhi)
1. These two appeals - one by the revenue for the assessment year 1989-90 and the other by the assessee for the year 1990-91 involve a common point - whether the assessee is a "Supporting Manufacturer" under Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 80 HHC.2. For the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,94,44,205 in respect of sale of Rs. 7,48,83,580 made to export house for purposes of export. The 'supporting manufacturer' is defined as per Explanation to Sub-section (4A) of Section 80HHC as under: Supporting manufacturer' means a person being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India. (Manufacturing goods) or merchandise and selling such goods or merchandise to an Export House or a Trading House, for the purposes of export.2.1 The assessee rested its claim on the following submissions made before the Assessing Officer: 1. Various brokers bring live buffaloes/goats at the factory premises and after visual examination live animals a...
Sh. S.C. Garg and Others Vs. Desu and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi62
ORDERR. L. Gupta, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of CWP Nos. 2191/93 and 2192/93, In the first petition the premises in dispute where electricity connection is desired by the petitioners is Flat No. 105 allegedly owned by them while in the second writ petition, it is flat No. 102 under the tenancy of the petitioners. Both are located in E-55, Greater Kailash Part I], New Delhi. Petitioners claim to be owners of flat No, 105 vide registered sale deed dated 25-2-1991. They applied for grant of electricity connection to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU for short) which refused to grant the same on 16-3-1993. thereforee, the prayer in the writ petitions is for issue of writ of mandamus, direction or any other appropriate writ directing DESU to supply the electric connection in the aforesaid premises.2. The stand of DESU in its counter-affidavit is that the premises in which the electricity connection is sought by the petitioners is an unauthorised construction or a building under ...
M. Rama Kumar Vs. Director General, Cisf.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ146; 1994LabIC1586
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. The petitioner was directly appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Clerk/Typist) in the CISF with effect from February 20, 1986. He completed his probation with effect from February 19, 1988. In this regard an order was passed by the Commandant, CISF on June 8, 1989 and the order clearly states that the petitioner completed his probationary period satisfactorily on February 19, 1988. Despite the completion of the period of probation, the petitioner was not confirmed till June 1, 1990 on the ground that the DPC did not consider him fit to be confirmed before that date. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to be confirmed with effect from February 19, 1988 when he completed his probation. On the order hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the question of confirmation had to be considered by the Departmental promotion Committee on the basis of ACRs of the petitioner recorded during the probationary period ...
S.C. Targ and ors. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi177; 1994RLR295
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Cwp Nos. 2191/93 and 2192/93. In the first petition the premises in dispute where electricity connection is desired by the pe'i*ioners is Flat No. 105 allegedly owned by them while in the second writ pe'ition. it is fiat No, 102 under the tenancy of the petitioners. Both are located in E-55, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi. Petitioners claim to be owners of flat No. 105 vide registered sale deed dated 25-2-1991. They applied for grant of electricity connection to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU for short) which refused to grant the same on 16-3-1993. thereforee, the prayer in the writ petitions is for issue of writ of mandamus. direction cr any other appropriate writ directing Desu to supply the electric connection in the aforesaid premises.(2) The stand of Desu in its counter affidavit is that the premises in which the electricity connection is sought by the petitioners is an unauthorized construction or a building under devia...
Lamba Brothers P. Ltd. Vs. Lamba Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR508(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT283
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.8.1993passed by learned single Judge whereby he has declined to entertain the suit for in fringement of copyright in the 'brochure' for Elbe machines of the plaintiff. (2) The facts set out in the suit in substance are that the Managing Director of the plaintiff, Shri Harbhajan Singh Lamba, and the Managing Director of the defendant,. Shri Rajinder Singh Lamba, are the real brothers and both of them started a partnership firm known as Lamba Brothers in the year 1960 for the manufacture of Power Presses (Machines), Notching presses, shearing machines and bending machines under the trade mark E. The said partnership was dissolved on 1.4.1985 vide Deed of Dissolution dated 20.10.1985. After dissolution of the partnership, Shri Harbhajan Singh Lamba started his own business of manufacturing and merchandise of the aforesaid machines by inviting his son as his partner in the business. Both the brothers are in litigation with ...
Y.P.S. Mathur Vs. Fruit and Vegetable Project and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ62
P.N. Nag, J. (1) RULE. D.B. (2) By this writ petition the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 6.8.1992 whereby on acceptance of resignation, the petitioner has been relieved of his duties with effect from 6.8.1992 (afternoon). The petitioner, who was working as Joint Coordinator Grade Iii in the Procurement Department, has challenged this order on the ground that the respondents -have accepted his resignation malafide as he has resigned from the Vice Presidentship of Union only and not from the post which he was holding with the Fruit & Vegetable Project. According to the petitioner, he has not tendered his resignation from the respondent-project and the phonogram/telegram sent by him has been miscount strode by the respondents. thereforee, the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation by the respondents is void ab initio. (3) Such a position has been seriously controverter by the respondents and according to them, the resignation was sent by the petitioner ...
N.R. Jyotshi Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT236; 1994(29)DRJ427
ARTMENTP.N. Nag, J.(1) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his order of termination of his services dated 23.10.1992 issued by respondent No.3-Bank. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds. One of the grounds, amongst others, is of malafides of respondents 3 & 4. (2) Show cause notice was issued in this writ petition and counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 & 4 and a preliminary objections has been taken therein that respondent No.3, i.e.. The Khattri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. is neither a State nor instrumentality of State within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution and, thereforee, no writ petition is maintainable. A perusal of the writ petition shows that no foundation has been laid down by the petitioner to demonstrate that respondent is a State or instrumentality of State although it has been stated that respondents 3 & 4 are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution...
Amtex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT839TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-appeal dated 9-9-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. The appellants are engaged in the process of Denim Cloth, with the aid of zero-zero processing machine. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 253/82, dated 8-11-1982, as amended. It was noticed by the Department that the appellants were using foam spraying machine, which was attached to zero-zero machine and from which the solution of Alkosin-SR (a chemical compound) was used for spraying foam. This spraying was done to give lustre, good finish as well as shrinkage to the fabrics. The Assistant Collector held that the process undertaken by the party is not only zero-zero process but something more than that amounting to manufacture and the process was not exempted under the notification. Accordingly, the party had been asked to pay duty amounting to Rs. 12,311.12 in respect of 8759.44 Sq. Mts. of processed Denum fabrics which has been clea...
Avadhoot Printers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC12Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an apeal against the order dated 26-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the appellants filed Classification List No.18/87 seeking the classification of their product 'Slides for Cigarettes packets' under sub-heading 4818.19 read with Notification No. 63/82. However, by his Order No. 27/1988 the Assistant Collector held that these 'Printed Slides' were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector.2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Ravinder Narain, Ld. Senior Advocate with Shri R.D. Jaiman, Excise Officer of the appellants' firm appeared before us. While admitting that the matter was covered against the appellants by Final Order No. 76/94-C, dated 28-2-1994 passed by the Tribunal in the case of I.T.C. L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »