Delhi Court July 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. India Watch Parts Mfrs.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT705TriDel
1. These reference applications have been filed by the Department against Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1102-1112/93-NRB. It has been urged that the following questions of law are arising out of the above order and the same may be referred to the Hon'ble High Court for decision :- 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law inasmuch as it refused to admit the letter of D.G.F.T. clarifying that Bezels fitted with glass required a specific licence even by actual users since the empty watch case is specifically mentioned in the restricted list of the Import Policy. 2. Whether after having refused to admit the additional evidence, if the clarificatory letter can be so regarded, the Tribunal could have sat on judgment and interpreted the Exim Policy.2. Making his submissions on behalf of the Department, Shri M.M.Mathur, Jt. CDR stated that the question to be decided was whether Bezel fitted with glass could be deemed as "watch case" which was covered under Item 3A of the Negative List of the...
Shivdev Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC53; 1995ACJ318; 1995CriLJ2142; 1994(3)Crimes731; 58(1995)DLT462; 1994(30)DRJ483
ORDER1. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20th August, 1979 passed by Mr. G. S. Dhaka, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld and confirmed the order of sentence dated 18th March, 1978 directing the petitioner to undergo R.I. for one year, by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 304-B (304A) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this application are reproduced as under :- The petitioner/accused Shivdev Singh was driving Bus No. DLP-4634 from Subzimandi Ghanta Ghar to Shastri Nagar. At about 9 P.M. on 28-7-1991. PW-5 Chand Singh and PW-1 Kasturi were sitting on the rear seat of the bus. Shital Preshad was standing on the foot-board of the bus. At about 9.15 P.M. the bus reached the Sandra Kalan Crossing. The petitioner/accused took a sharp turn at a very fast speed. Consequently, Shital Pershad fell down from the bus. He was admitted to Irvin Hospital where he expired soon ...
New Era Industries Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ148
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) The petitioner-claimant filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act,1940 for making the award given by respondent No.2 Sh.B.K.Mattu, General Manager (Engineering) India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter called the I.T.D.C) pertaining to Guest Room interiors of Hotel Kanishka, New Delhi. Along with this petition a copy of the award was also filed. (2) Notice was issued to the Arbitrator to file the award along with the proceedings. The Arbitrator filed the award. Thereafter notices were issued to the parties of the filing of the award and to file objections if any, within statutory period. Petitioner- clarinet did not file any objection. Only respondent No.1 i.e. I.T.D.C filed the present objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act in is No-9253/89. Various challenges were made to the award like that award was illegal and invalid in law and that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings. Though the Ar...
A.S. Pathania and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)872; 55(1994)DLT468; 1994(30)DRJ362; 1994LabIC2520
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Here is yet another writ petition making a grievance of the promotions made and the seniority fixed.(2) First, the bird eye view of the facts. By order dated June 12, 1980 the petitioners were directly appointed to the Gazetted post of Assistant Company Commander in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police on temporary basis with effect from June 2, 1980 'until further orders'. On February 20, 1984, they were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Company Commanders Gazetted Group A and on September 1, 1988 their ad-hoc promotion was regularised with effect from the date of their promotion on ad-hoc basis. On the surface, it all appears to be so orderly and smooth. Reality has been far from so. Soon after the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Commanders, Respondents 3 to 15 who, at that time, were working as non-Gazetted Subedars/Inspectors were promoted as Company Commanders.This was on October 24, 1980. And, on December 1, 1983 respondents 6 to 24 were also simi...
Collector of Customs Vs. K.K.R. Ibrahim Rowther
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT379TriDel
1. In this case the appeal as well as stay application filed by the Collector of Customs alongwith the Cross Objection by the respondents were all taken up together for disposal. Since the appeal itself lies in a short compass and can be disposed of, the stay also stands disposed of accordingly. The respondent imported one 1988 model Toyota Cressida car when he returned to India, by filing Bill of Entry No. 2206/24-8-1993. For assessment purposes, the value of the car was fixed at Rs. 2,58,816/-. A depreciation of 54% was allowed for the period 8/1988 to 6/1993 and US $ 1717.50 were added as freight charges from Japan to India vide Order-in-Original No. S. 33/110/93 AP. Cus., dated 6-12-1993 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin.2(a). The importer, Shri K.K.R. Ibrahim Rowther, being aggrieved by the Original Order filed appeal before Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. He submitted that freight charges should be limited upto 20% of FOB value of the car imported.3. C...
Sita Ram Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT736TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for acquiring possession of and being concerned in purchasing, keeping, selling and dealing with excisable goods with the knowledge and reasonable belief of their liability to confiscation.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3-4-1991 the Central Excise officers visited the godown premises of M/s. Gill Sandhu Haryana Transport Company, Jaipur and detected 23 bundles of copper circles and 7 bundles of copper utensils lying inside the Transport Company's godown. The Manager of the Transport Company, Manmohan produced a GR No. 555 dated 2-4-1981 and a bill of the same date for the copper circles. But there was no duty paying documents in the form of GP-I, etc. accompanying the consignment. Except the goods covered by the GR No. 555 and the bill, the remaining goods were seized in the ab...
Sarawgi Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT755TriDel
1. By the present applications the appellants have made a prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty amounts in the cases of M/s. Sarawgi Metal Industries and M/s. Siotia Metal Industries. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate who is present for the appellants, pleaded that since the issue is similar and as such the same may be deposed of together. Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR who is present for the respondent has got no objection to the same. Accordingly we proceed to pass a common Order. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned Advocate pleaded that in the case of Sarawgi Metal Industries the duty amount is Rs. 1,18.979.45 and in the case of Siotia Metal Industries it is Rs. 1,32,776.61 and no penalty amount is involved. Shri Agarwal argued that the issue involved is benefit of exemption notification in terms of Notification No. 178/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 as amended from time to time. He pleaded that the appellant had used zinc as one of the inputs in addition to the other inputs ...
Pure Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT831TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 3,94,200/- on 9250 gross bottles of aerated waters alleged to have been removed clandestinely without payment of duty during the period 1-10-1985 to 31-3-1986 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- the case of the Department is based on the clearance of 9250 gross crown corks from the store section to the plant section as indicated in the cardex reports but not entered/accounted for in the raw material register/Central Excise records maintained by the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of aerated waters with Plants situated in different places, having a common General Store situated at 30, Industrial Area, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. This Store supplies raw materials including crown corks to all the Plants of the appellants situated throughout India against requisition slips issued by the Plants and the ac...
Narendra Nath Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT216TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the above appellants involving a common issue. Hence they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri. Sanjeev Saraswat, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the point to be considered in these two cases is whether the short-levy demanded is barred by time or not in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to the Section 28 of the Customs Act, he said that to issue notice for such short-levy it should be within one year in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or Government or by any educational research or charitable institution or hospital and in any other case it should be within six months. He submitted that Section 28(a) is not applicable in this case because of the fact that the importer was neither individual nor car was used for personal purpose and accordingly the demand was barred by time since the show cause notice was issued after prescribed ...
international Research Park Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD37(Delhi)
1. In all these matters the principal appeal is by Messrs.International Research Park Laboratories Ltd., 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, while in all the other cases their representatives appeared as interveners to assist us to arrive at a proper interpretation of Section 80HHC as to how it should be operated to resolve practical problems that arose or arise in the course of its implementation. This matter has not rested res integra. Several Benches of the Tribunal have already had occasion to deal with this matter. The views taken by them have not been uniform. The constitution of the Special Bench is, therefore, an attempt to arrive at a proper meaning of Section 80HHC having due regard to the object and philosophy behind its enactment. This section has been on the statute book from the assessment year 1983-84. The object of introduction of the provision conferring this benefit on exports is primarily to give the greatest amount of fillip to the promotion of expo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »