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.
Daya Industries and ors. Vs. Jaswant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)489; 54(1994)DLT315
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is an application filed on behalf of SardarJaswant Singh(hereinafter referred to as the respondent) under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in this application it has been prayed that ex-parte order dated 13/11/1991 passed by this Court be set-aside and the respondent be allowed to file the affidavit by way of evidence. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioners and the petitioners in their reply dated 15/01/1992 have controverter the averments made in the application.(2) Mr. Manmohan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/applicant submitted that the respondent had engaged Shri 0.P. Sharma,Advocate in this case and it was because of negligence on the part of the said Advocate that the respondent was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 15/03/1991 and thereafter since the said Advocate did not appear on behalf of the respondent an ex-parte order was passed by this Court ...
Saroj Satija and Ashok Kumar Batra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)328; 1994(2)Crimes478; 56(1994)DLT579; II(1994)DMC284; 1994(29)DRJ148; 1994RLR282
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Under section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecutor is required, while opening the case for the prosecution, to describe the charge against the accused. With this part over comes the duty of the court to pass an order either under section 227 or section 228 of the Code. However, that order is passed only after considering the record of the case, the documents submitted therewith and hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. If 'the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing' as required by section 227. However, if 'the judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence .which ............ (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused' as enjoined in section 228. (2) The dispute in this case is as to whether the lear...
Charles Baggett Rayfield Wafford Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)691; 1994(3)Crimes817; 54(1994)DLT418
V.B. Bansal, J. 1. Charles Baggctt@Rayfield Wafford has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) for having been found in possession of 100 grams of Heroin, a manufactured drug, on 19.8.1987 in contravention of Section 8 of the Act, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/--or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, vide judgment and order dated 25.3.1992 by Shri S.L. Khanna, learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.2. Shri D.A. Nistane, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (Narcotics Control Bureau) filed a complaint against Surinder Pal @ Peter Paul and Charles Baggett @ Rayfield Wafford, appellant in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for trial under Section 21 of the Act.3. Briefly stated, the averments made in the complaint have been that in pursuance of an in...
Workwell Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT222TriDel
1. In both these appeals, the common question of facts and law is involved and hence they are taken up togehter for disposal as per law.The question that has arisen for our consideration is the correct classification of the goods manufactured by the appellants i.e."domestic electric mills" (DEFM) on which the electric motor is fitted at the site. The original authority classified this product under sub-heading 85.09 of Act, 1985 while the appellants claimed the classification under sub-heading 84.37 of CET Act of 1985. The respective heading read as follows : 84.37 8437.00 Machines for cleaning, sorting or grading seed, grain or dried leguminous vegetables; 85.09 8509.00 Electro-mechanical domestic appliances with self-contained electric motor.In the case of Workwell Engineering, show cause notice, dated 22-6-1990 was issued wherein it was alleged that Gharghanti valued at Rs. 15,53,779.00 for the period from 1-1-1990 to 31-5-1990 was cleared without paying the central excise duty lev...
Lachhma Chemicals and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)(52)LC523Tri(Delhi)
1. The only issue involved in both these cases is, whether the Zinc Sulphate falls within the expression "fertilizer" for the purposes of Notification No. 81/75-CE dated 22.3.1975, as amended.2. Both the authorities below have held that the benefit under the said Notification No. 81/75-CE is not available to the appellants as exemption to Sulphuric Acid received by the appellants under Chapter X Procedure and used in the manufacture of Zinc Sulphate is not "fertilizer".3. When the case was called, Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue and the appellants instead of entering into appearance have requested for a decision on merits in their absence. Accordingly, we perused the record including the written submissions and heard Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR.4. At the outset, Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR, pointed out that the said issue is a covered one by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Punjab Micro Nutrients Ltd. v. Collector o...
Parkash Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT481TriDel
1. M/s. Parkash Industries have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had held that "goods were imported for trading and sale; that the equipment could not be classified as life saving equipment as claimed by the appellant; that the impugned goods were consumer goods and therefore, were borne on the negative list in the Import Policy; that the appellant's case was also not covered under Para 22 regarding free importability or under Para 23 regarding actual users conditions of the relevant Import Trade (Control) Policy".2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant imported 10 pcs. of digital blood pressure instruments by post parcel. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant but no one appeared before the Adjudicating Officer and, therefore, the Adjudicating Officer decided the case ex parte. The appellant filed the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) pleading that the item imported by the appel...
Col-tubes (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT342TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Col. Tubes (P) Ltd., Pithampur (Madhya Pradesh), against the Order-in-Original No.15/Collector/CEX/92, dt. 19-8-1992, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore.2. The appellants have pleaded that the value of the plastic cap, a bought-out item, was not includible in the assessable value of the collapsible aluminium tube, when such tube was removed by them with the cap.3. The revenue had filed cross-objections in which it has been contended that the collapsible aluminium tube cannot be used without the cap, and as such, these collapsible aluminium tubes are not marketable without the caps. They have stated that nobody would like to purchase a collapsible tube without the cap on it, as it cannot be used without such a cap.4. The appellants had filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein they had prayed that they be permitted to have their appeal heard on merits without the requirement of any deposit. The Hon.Madhya Pradesh Hi...
Khusia Bai Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT615TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 19-7-1988 Mohan Singh and Mangha Singh were apprehended at about 2.00 AM near Village Chhanga Rai Uttar Ferozpur District and 35 packets of charas were recovered from each of the sacks being carried by them as head loads. They further disclosed that they have also delivered 5 sacks of charas to Mrs.Khusia Bai (mother of Mangha Singh) and a search of her house led to the recovery of 5 sacks containing a total of 160 packets of charas. In their respective statements. All 3 of them admitted the above facts and stated that earlier 5 sacks had been dumped in the house of Khusia Bai which were given to them by Lal Singh and transported by them along with Khanda Singh in Khanda Singh's tractor trolly. Lal Singh also admitted that while he was rowing his boat he noticed something which was found to be charas and further deposed that he had arranged for its transportation through Khanda Singh's tractor trolly along with his son Mangha Singh to his hou...
Nufarm Chemicals Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)50TTJ(Del)42
ORDERM. A. BAKHSHI, J. M. :The appeal of the assessed for asst. yr. 1988-89 is directed against the order dt. 6th Sept., 1990 of CIT(A), Faridabad. There was a delay of 246 days in filing of the appeal. assessed had filed an application for condensation of delay and the Bench vide separate order dt. 25th Feb., 1994 on consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case have condoned the delay.2. The appeal was heard by us on merits on 4th April, 1994.3. Appellant is a registered firm. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year in appeal, assessed derived income from the manufacturing of U. F. moulding powder, P. F. moulding powder and Phenol Formaldehyde Resins. assessed had filed the return of income declaring loss of Rs. 3,89,190. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dt. 25th Sept., 1989 at an income of Rs. 10,26,330.4. assessed appealed to the CIT(A), who vide impugned order accepted the same in part. Various grounds of appeal have been raise...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Swarajya Cement Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)(52)LC525Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Sub-heading 2502.20 Their factory went into production after 1.4.1986. They filed a refund claim for the period 1.3.1987 to 31.3.1987 on the ground that for the said period, they were eligible to clear cement at the concessional rate of Excise duty of Rs. 50/- per tonne in terms of Notification No. 36/87. The claim for refund of duty filed by the respondents was received in the office of the Assistant Collector on 29.9.1987. In terms of Notification No. 36/87, Cement chargeable to the concessional rate of Central Excise duty of Rs. 50/-per tonne, subject, inter alia, to the condition that cement was manufactured in a factory where production of cement in any financial year was not less than thirty per cent of the annual licensed capacity of the factory manufacturing cement as certified by the Development Commissioner for Cement Industry in the Ministry of Industry. The Assistant Collector held that assessments n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »