Delhi Court May 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.
R.N. Mallick Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT930TriDel
1. Dr. Rajinder Nath Mallick, 192-C, Sainik Farms, New Delhi 110062 has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, (Appeals), New Delhi. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant, Learned Advocate pleaded that the appellant had imported 1983 model and time of import was 91/2 years old. He pleaded that the car being very old was in a very bad shape.The Assistant Collector had allowed the depreciation at s rate of 46% plus an ad-hoc depreciation. Shri Anand further argued that the appellant being not satisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector ad challenged the same before the Collector (Appeals) and Collector (Appeals) had allowed further depreciation of 2%. He pleaded that the appellant's car is 1983 model. Shri Anand referred to Vadodara Collectorate F. No. VIII/1-1/Cus./T/93, dated 15-6-1993. He pleaded that as per Board's circular, the Depreciation was allowed at 70%. The said circular is reporte...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Addison and Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT331TriDel
1. These three appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is common to all the appeals. The facts are as follows. The assessee has been granting various kinds of discounts to its wholesale dealers. Two such discounts, namely turnover discount and additional discount are the subject matter of these appeals. Turnover discount is granted to the wholesale dealers by the assessee on the basis of the turnover achieved by the dealer on a slab basis in terms of percentage and the same is reflected in the policies issued by them and signed by them at the commencement of the year and are indicated and filed alongwith the price list filed under Rule 173C. Once the dealer achieve the turnover in terms of the agreement, the company pays the discount at the agreed rate on the turnover in the form of credit notes.2. In the case of additional discounts, the assessee has been granting these discounts in addition to trade discount for certain categories of tools in certain regions ...
Shri Prem Seth and Others Vs. National Industrial Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi500
1. I have heard arguments for disposing of this application.2. The prayer made in this application is that the respondents be restrained from issuing 20,05,000 shares.3. The petitioners, who are four in number and are share holders of the respondent No. 1 company, have brought a petition under Section 397/398 read with Section 151 of the Companies Act seeking certain reliefs and in the alternative have sought winding up order under Section 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act.4. Vide elaborate judgment dated February 2,1993, it was held that the petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act is not maintainable and the matter regarding prayer of winding up was directed to be dealt with separately. The petition for winding up has yet not been admitted and the same is at the show cause stage.5. Learned counsel for the petitoner/ applicant has contended that the respondent No. 1 company has sought to issue fresh right shares in violation of the provisions of Section 81 ...
Prem Seth and ors. Vs. National Industrial Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi285; 1994(29)DRJ531; 1994RLR301
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) I have heard arguments for disposing of this application.(2) The prayer made in this application is that the respondents be restrained from issuing 20,05,000 shares.(3) The petitioners, who are four in number and are share holders of the respondent No.1 company, have brought a petition under Section 397/398 read with Section 151 of the Companies Act seeking certain reliefs and in the alternative have sought winding up order under Section 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act.(4) Vide elaborate judgment dated February 2, 1993, it was held that the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act is not maintainable and the matter regarding prayer of winding up was directed to be dealt with separately. The petition for winding up has yet not been admitted and the same is at the show cause stage.(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has contended that the respondent no.1 company has sought to issue fresh right shares in violation of the provis...
Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)Crimes668; 54(1994)DLT565; ILR1995Delhi506; 1994RLR343
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The entire controversy in this case revolves around the Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export and Price) Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter called the Order) and more precisely around its Clause 9(c) which runs as under : '9.Power of entry, seizure etc.-The Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in writing in this behalf may with a view to secure compliance with this order or satisfying himself that this order has to (sic) complied with :- (a) ............... (b) ............... (c) enter and search any premises or place or vehicle, and seize any article in respect of which the Commissioner or the authorised officer suspects that any permission of this order has been, is being or is about to be contravened.'(2) Before I spell out the points involved I do feel that a short comment on the facts would be called for. (3) The petitioner was a kerosene oil licensee. On July 31, 1981 two Inspector from the Food and Supply Department, Delhi Administration searched his busi...
Amar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ573
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Amar Singh alias Gheesa and Lekh Ram were convicted under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.200.00 . Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence AmarSingh alias Gheesa preferred an appeal. That was in the month of February. The year was 1977.(2) What is the case of the prosecution? This is how it emerges out from the evidence of Bansi Lal (Public Witness -1), Parbhati Lal (Public Witness -2), Laxmi (Public Witness -3), Ganga Ram (Public Witness -4) and Sher Singh (Public Witness -6)(3) On February 3, 1975 at about 11 P.M. the appellant accompanied by Lekh Ram came to the house of Bansi Lal and asked him to accompany them. When he showed reluctance he was secured by the appellant while Lekh Ram inflicted a knife blow on his back. On this Parbhati Lal who is the father of Bansi Lal, tried to intervene but then he too was stabbed on his right thigh, a...
Manmohan Service Station Vs. Mohd. Haroon Japanwala and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)252; AIR1994Delhi337; 54(1994)DLT552; (1994)107PLR50; 1994RLR324
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issue of an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agen's from selling, transferring, allenating, encumbering or in any manner parting with possession of the super structure and the land adjoining thereto forming part of the property bearing No. 6. Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road, Delhi, till the final disposal of the suit. (2) The case of the. petitioner as reflected through the pages of the plaint and the application under disposal is as under: 'hat the plaintiff herein is a tenant in respect of two separate portions i.e. quarter? Nos. 44 and 45 and a plot of land measuring 300 sq. yards with a tin shed in 'he property bearing No. 6, Sham Nath Marg, Alipur Road, Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 w.e.f. April 1, 1973. Earlier thereto the rate of rent of the above tenanted accommodation was Rs. 12112 Annas per mensem. The plaintiff has been in occupat...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lipi Data Systems
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC122Tri(Delhi)
1. The admissibility or otherwise of Modvat credit in respect of Ribbons used in relation to the manufacture of final product 'Line Printers' is the issue for determination in this appeal filed by the Department.2. The respondents herein filed a claim for grant of Modvat credit on certain inputs, including ribbons for use in or in relation to manufacture of their final product namely Line Printers under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide their letter dated 17-4-1987 and claimed credit on Countervailing duty paid by them on the stock of inputs as on 1-3-1987. The Modvat credit was extended to all the inputs except ribbons on the ground inter alia that ribbons had not been declared in the declaration filed in terms of Rule 57G and that ribbons which were used captively in line printers, fell for classification under Heading 9612.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and exempt from duty under Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 and according to Rule 57D, Modvat cred...
Haryana Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT189TriDel
1. Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 2,07,386 has been disallowed on glass bottles received by the appellants herein who are manufacturers of aerated waters on the ground that the same were received under cover of gate-passes endorsed in their favour by the bottle manufacturer after the process of printing is carried out on the bottles i.e. on the ground that the credit cannot be allowed on strength of GPs when goods received are not in original packing. The glass bottles are sent by manufacturers. M/s. Ceramic Decorators under GPIs and M/s Ceramic Decorators open the packages, print them, repack them and send them to the appellants under cover of gate-passes issued by the manufacturers of glass bottles after endorsing them in favour of the appellants.Learned Counsel, Smt. Archana Wadhwa contends that modvat cannot be denied on the presumption that the entire quantity of bottles may not have reached the appellants due to their fragile nature and likelihood of breakage in handling in th...
Citicom Systems Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT509TriDel
1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Citicom Systems, Daryaganj, Delhi, a sole proprietory concern, (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants'/'importer'), being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 201/91, dated 28-8-1991, passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. The appellant had imported 4 fax machines and spares by 5 post parcels from Singapore. It was alleged in the show cause notice, dated 18-3-1991 that the goods had been imported without a valid import licence and that their value has been under-declared. The importer had filed a civil writ petition being No. 1769/91 in the Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed the adjudicating authority to finalise the adjudication and pass the order, after giving a hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, within 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of their order. The Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi vide his Order-in-Original dated 28-8-1991 came to a finding that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »