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.
Continental Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mittu International Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT395
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) M/S.CONTINENTAL Carriers Pvt.Ltd. have filed this revision petition against the order dated 6.8.92 of Shri Jps Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant against respondents 1 to3 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to us the 'Act') was dismissed. (2) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents 1 to 3 alleging that in Februrary1991 in pursuance of a request by the aforesaid respondents their export consignment of ready made garments for sending to Birmingham, London was got cleared from the Customs Department and for doing that job a bill for Rs. 58,691 .00 was raised against respondent No. 1, of which respondents 2and 3 are partners. It was also claimed that a Cheque dated 17.7.1991 for Rs. 58.216.00drawn on Indian Bank,Overseas Branch, New Delhi, for payment to the petitioner/compl...
Behere Brothers Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT37; 1994(31)DRJ1
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioners seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to uphold a public auction of a plot and transfer the same to the petitioners, they being the highest bidder. (2) The facts, in so far as relevant for the purpose of present petition, are not in controversy. An auction was held pursuant to Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as-the Rules). The auction was held on 13.11.1987. The petitioner made a bid of Rs.7,03,000.00 which was the highest bid. An amount of Rs.l,75,750.00 was deposited on the same day as earnest money. On 13.11.1987 the Dda issued a letter Annexure 'B' demanding the balance amount of Rs.5,27,250.00 (plus RS.II.00 documentation charges) to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the letter. The letter was received by the petitioners on 16.11.1987. On 10.12.1987 the petitioners asked for an extension in the period of payment, atleast by two months, stating that the projec...
Raghunandan Sharma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)349; 54(1994)DLT370; 1994(29)DRJ151
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The question for determination in this writ petition and several other connected writ petitions is whether persons holding the post of Depot Manager in the Delhi Transport Corporation are empowered to take disciplinary action (including action for removal, dismissal and reduction in rank) against the employees who are generally working as Drivers and Conductors in the Delhi Transport Corporation falling in the category of Class III/Class Iv employees. (2) A controversy of somewhat similar nature had arisen earlier also in this Court when a learned Single Judge had quashed the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners in those cases holding that in case of persons employed between April 1973 and March2, 1974 it is only the Transport Corporation or the General Manager who could initiate and take disciplinary action. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed in L.P.A. No.6 of 1976, D.T.C. vs. Surinder Kumar, decided on 30th September 1977. T...
Dutta Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT311TriDel
1. The appellant has challenged the order in appeal passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi by his order dated 25-5-1988. (i) The appellants were issued with two show-cause notices. By show-cause notice dated 7-10-1982, it was alleged that the appellants had exceeded Rs. 30 lakh clearances during the year 1981-82 and as such were not entitled for exemption under the Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980 as amended during the financial year 1982-83. As such duty amount of Rs. 52,015.76 was demanded on the respective clearances made as per G.P. 1 No. 4, dated 2-6-1982; G.P. 1 No. 5, dated 13-6-1982 and G.P. 1 No. 6, dated 2-7-1982. (ii) By show cause-notice dated 30-6-1982, it was alleged that they had exceeded the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs during the financial year 1981-82 in terms of Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980 as amended, by Rs. 5,32,609/- in excess of the said limit and hence CED of Rs. 42,608.72 was demanded for the respective clearances made through G.P. 1 ...
Rajeev Sharma Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT116TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Addl. Collector of Customs, New Delhi confiscating absolutely 2646 kgs. of Polyester Texturised yarn of Korean origin valued at Rs. 3,43,980/- recovered on 2-2-1987 from the factory premises of the appellant herein and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon him for contravention of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2-2-1987, the Customs Preventive Staff searched premises of WZ-191/1, Madipur Village and recovered 84 Card Board cartons wrapped in gunny cloth containing Polyester Texturised yarn made in Korea. The same were seized in the absence of production of any evidence for their lawful import or acquisition etc. Statement of Proprietor of the factory, Shri Rajeev Sharma was recorded on the same date in which he stated that he was a permanent resident of Ludhiana where he was carrying on the business of fabrication of Hosiery goods before shifting his business to Delhi in June,...
Jamna Auto Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT194TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 26-2-1990.2. Learned Counsel stated that the Appellants are manufaturers of springs and leaves of iron steel.3. The issue relates to the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock as on 1-3-1986 and the inputs used in outputs during 1-3-1986 to 14-3-1986.4. They had filed a MODVAT DECLARATION on 11-3-1986 and in this declaration itself sought permission to avail Modvat on stock of inputs lying as on 1-3-1986 (by mistake typed as 1-3-1985). This declaration was duly acknowledged.5. Subsequently they submitted a fresh application under Rule 57H giving the full stocks/receipt of inputs on duty-paying documents.6. The Assistant Collector has denied them the benefit on the ground that they had filed the declaration only on 11-3-1986 under Rule 57A and had not applied under Rule 57H for transitional benefit that they had submitted the stock position only on 31-3-1986 and in fact the details were submi...
Collector of C. Excise Vs. New Heaven Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC321Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revenue appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The assessee manufacture product "Round Rough Shaped Forged Balls" (i.e. round pieces of dimensions 12 mm to 25 mm as shown at S. No. 2 of the classification list under sub-heading 7208.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asstt. Collector approved the classification list. The revenue being aggrieved with the said classification list approved, filed an appeal under the provisions of Section 35B of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, on the plea that the goods would be more appropriately classifiable under Heading/sub-heading 7308.90 of CETA, 1985 attracting excise duty at 15% adv. Ld. Collector has held as follows : "The structure of Central Excise Tariff under Heading 73.08 at the relevant time i.e. 1987 was different. Heading 72.08 provided specific entry for pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron and steel not elsewhere specified. The application clearly says that the produ...
All India Motor Transport Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT38TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla. The appellants imported two consignments of Rubber Tyres with tubes and flaps. They sought the clearance of the tyres under O.G.L. Sr. No. 46 of Appendix 6 of Import Export Policy 1990-93 and tubes and flaps under O.G.L. Sr. No. I(4) of Appendix 6 of the said, policy. The assessment of the tyres was claimed at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 185/88. They also claimed that the imported tubes and flaps were of rim size 7.0" and 7.5" and attracted additional duty at the rate of Rs. 46/- per tube and flap in terms of Notification No. 35/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. In the impugned order the Additional Collector held that appellants not being Actual Users they were not entitled to import tubes and flaps under O.G.L. in terms of Sr. No. I(4) of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy 1990-93. He, therefore, held that the tubes and flaps in question had been imported in contravention...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maxon India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT483TriDel
1. The issue for determination in these appeals is the applicability of Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to waste and scrap generated during the course of manufacture of BOPP films and cleared under Heading 39.15 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 at nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 53/86.2. The respondents hereunder are engaged in the manufacture of BOPP films falling under Heading 39.20 CETA, 1985 and were availing the facility of Modvat credit of duty on the inputs namely, Polypropylene copolymer, Polypropylene monopolymer and Polypropylene compound under Rule 57A. During the period November, 1990 to March, 1991, they cleared waste, scrap and paring of other plastics falling under Heading 39.15 and Polypropylene falling under Heading 39.02 at nil rate of duty. It was observed that there was a high generation of waste vis-a-vis BOPP films and therefore, show cause notices were issued to the respondents proposing recovery of the amount of credit of duty availed ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)396; (1994)116CTR(Del)353; 54(1994)DLT446; 1994(29)DRJ225; [1994]210ITR1(Delhi)
D. K. Jain, J. 1. In these two references, at the instance of the Revenue, on a direction issued by the Allahabad High Court under section section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions of law in Reference No. 67 of 1982) and assessment year 1967-68 (Income-tax Reference No. 70 of 1982). '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from Modi Bhawan should be assessed under the head 'Business' and not under the head 'House property'? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction for actual repairs and depreciation in respect of Modi Bhawan are deductible as business expenses? Income-tax Reference No. 70 of 1982 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »