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.
D.C.W. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT107TriDel
1. The appellants have challenged the order-in-original dt. 15-5-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Kandla, Gujarat. By his order dt. 15-5-1991, the ld. Collector has held that 68 packages imported by the appellants and declared to contain one No. Steam Calcination Plant (Steam Tube Drier) complete with Accessories and Wear-parts are not classifiable as a complete unit under sub-heading 8419.39 but they are required to be classified on merits, as per the allegations made in the show-cause notice. He has held that the importer did not include a part of the payment for goods to the extent of Rs. 51,27,500/- as assessable value even though they were aware that this demand had been made as a condition for the sale of the goods. By not including this amount, they would have evaded payment of duty to the extent of Rs. 58,52,4007-. He has held that besides they had also claimed classification of the entire machine under one heading even though each of the machine are separately inv...
M/S. V.K. Dewan and Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi304; 1994(29)DRJ522
ORDER1. Mr. V. K. Dewan and Co. by this writ petition has assailed the order of respondent No. 2, Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking (in short the D.W.S. and S.D.) thereby debarring the company for further tendering in the said undertaking for a period of three years.2. Mr. Lekhi's challenge to the impugned order dated 23rd Nov. 1993, is on three counts firstly the respondent having exhausted theremedy under the terms of the contract and the rules, i.e. by cancelling the contract and by forfeiting the earnest money, could not resort to disciplinary action of debarring or banning the petitioner from further tendering. This amounted black-listing the petitioner which is not within the competence of the respondent. Secondly, neither the terms of the contract nor the rules, indicated in CPWD Manual of Instruction empower the respondent to take such disciplinary action. Disciplinary action adopted by ihe respondent is disproportionate to the offence alleged, thereforee, irra...
Festo Controls (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC362Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-original dt.5-12-1991 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore denying the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 175/86, dt. 1-3-1986 and has confirmed the differential CED amounting to Rs. 18,78,856.18 on the goods cleared during the period 1987-88 to 1989-90 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso of Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has also been imposed on the appellants. The facts of the case are that the show-cause notice dt. 20-8-1991 was issued to the appellants. It is alleged therein that the appellants are manufacturers of Pneumatic valves, Cylinders, base plate, manifold and fillings falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they had contravened Rules 9(1), 52A, 53 read with Rule 226, 173B, 173G and 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and further committed the offences specified in Rule 173Q(1)(a), 173Q(1)(c) and 173Q(1)(d)...
Agrico Engg. Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC323Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. By this order the ld. Collector has confirmed a duty demand of (i) Rs. 15,0007- basic and Rs. 750.00 (Special) on 200 pcs. of Hydraulic Power Lift Bodies cleared by assessee to M/s. Escorts Ltd. and seized by Central Excise Officers of Faridabad as duty to the above extent had been short paid on such goods under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.(ii) Imposed Rs. 20,000/- fine on the said seized goods and amount appropriated from Rs. 11 lakhs.(iii) Ordered for confiscation of 781 pcs. of Hydraulic Power Lift Bodies bearing brand name of Escort valued at Rs. 5,85,780.00 and 19 plates bearing brand name of 'BM.' valued at Rs. 1,14,800.00, seized on 6-3-1990 by Central Excise Officers and held the assessee liable to pay Rs. 80,000/- as fine and the same was appropriated from bond B-11.(iv) Demanded and confirmed a excise duty amount of Rs. 11,42,843.12 Basic and Rs. 44,953...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S. Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR995(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. By this application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question, stated to be a question of law, arising out of Income-tax Appeal No. 298/(Del) of 1989, pertaining to the assessment year 1987-88, to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the claim of the assessed, not considering that : (i) the amount of Rs. 1,42,908 claimed as commission payable to Shri Chandran had neither been debited in the books of account nor had been paid to him; (ii) a suit was filed by the assessed in a civil court against Shri Chandran for violation of the written agreement between him and the assessed in which the assessed had not admitted any liability to ...
Deepak Kapur Vs. Ashok K. Ghose and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ489
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) These appeals were allowed earlier on 9th March, 1994, setting aside two orders of the learned Single Judge - (1) an order declining the list of witnesses as it was filed out of time and (2) appointing a commissioner to record evidence with a power to the commissioner to disallow questions which did not arise from the pleadings of the parties or the issues. As to the former Order, the Bench declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, but permitted the appellant to move an application for review or for condensation of delay for taking the list of witnesses on record. However, the second referred order appointing the Commissioner, was set aside on the ground that the said order went beyond the provisions of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure. None of the witnesses was exempted from appearance in Court, none was sick, nor was infirm. The Bench proceeded on the assumption that provisions of Order 26 Civil Procedure Code are exhaustive ...
Punjab National Bank Vs. N.R. Ayyanger and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT270
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs-26,46,211.53 paise together with pendentelite and future interest and costs of the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on account of the amount outstanding against the facility of Deferred Payment Guarantee and Bank Performance Guarantees given by the plaintiff-Bank for the defendant from time to time.(2) Defendant could not be served with the summons of the suit in the ordinary way despite repeated attempts and ultimately the defendant was served by way of proclamation published in The Hindustan Times' newspaper dated22.5.1992. Despite such service, no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and on 12.8.1992, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiff was directed to lead evidence on affidavits.(3) During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application, beingI.A.No.1014/91whereon the Court on 12.8.1992 issued the attachment order in respect of hypothecated machinery being '1x90 C.K. L.& ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kumaran Krishna Kutty
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT931TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Cochin has filed the above captioned appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals). Notices of hearing were issued to the party for the hearing of the stay application as well as the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the same. Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR is present on behalf of the appellant. He pleaded that since the appeal is being heard on merits, he does not press the stay application. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. The respondent has filed written arguments. Shri A.K. Singhal stated that the only issue in the present matter is whether the freight in the assessable value of the car is to be added from the port of shipment or the country of origin. He argued that the issue is settled in favour of the revenue and he referred to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Johnson Panthakkan vide final Order No. 87/94-A, dated 19th April, 1994. He pleaded th...
Deepak D. Gupta Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT332TriDel
1. Shri Deepak D. Gupta, the sole proprietor of M/s. Usha Electronics, C-28, Sector 7, Noida (U.P.) have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. A stay application duly supported with an affidavit was also presented simultaneously. The notice of hearing was issued for listing of the stay application. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the appellant pleaded that there are 12 show cause notices. Out of 12, 8 show cause notices were issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, 2 show cause notices by Additional Collector of Central Excise, 1 show cause notice by Deputy Collector and 1 show cause notice by Assistant Collector. Shri Santhanam, learned Advocate pleaded that there was a search at the appellant's business premises on 10-11-1987 and the Revenue Authorities seized all the records of the appellant. He pleaded that the Adjudicating Authority viz. Collector has passed one consolidated order...
Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Shingal Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas430(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This application had been moved seeking an order of this court that the land measuring five bighas, nineteen bids was and three biswasi comprised in khasra Nos. 420, 421 and 464 is owned by the petitioners and is not one of the assets of the company in liquidation, namely Shinghal Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2. The case set up by the petitioners in brief is that they have purchased the aforesaid land, vide registered sale deed executed on October 25, 1980, and registered on October 30, 1980, for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000 from the said company and Shri Roop Singh, the managing director of the said company had executed and got registered the sale deed in favor of the petitioners on receiving the consideration before the Sub-Registrar. 3. The official liquidator has filed a reply contesting this petition. It has been pleaded that no valid sale deed has been executed on behalf of the company in favor of the petitioners and thus the petitioners have not become the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »