Delhi Court August 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.
Carbide Chemicals Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT898TriDel
1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 23-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The facts, briefly, are that during the period 4-12-1979 to 16-12-1979, appellants paid duty on LDPE produced from Raw Naptha @ 40% ad valorem instead of 27% ad valorem as was payable according to Notification No. 302/79.Hence, they claimed refund of excess duty paid and the same was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, however, it was noticed that the appellants, during the above-mentioned period, recovered duty from their customers @ 40% ad valorem and not @ 27 ad valorem. Therefore, the Assistant Collector contended that the amount of refund sanctioned forms part of assessable value of the goods and duty is required to be paid on the same. Therefore, a demand for Rs. 3,26,974.37 was issued to the appellants and Assistant Collector confirmed the same. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector.2...
Nikko Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT680TriDel
1. The matter was called. Miss Sangeeta Jain, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. She reiterated the contentions made in the application for restoration of appeal. She pleaded that there is no wilful negligence or omission on the part of the appellant and that the bona fide of the appellants should be adopted. She expressed her regrets for earlier conduct on the part of the appellant.Shri K.K. Jha, learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent pleaded that in view of the regrets expressed by the learned Advocate, he has got no objection for the restoration of the appeal.2. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter, in Civil Writ Petition No. 2235/91, dated 20-9-1993, Hon'ble High Court had desired the expeditious disposal and if possible on 4-10-1993 or in near future thereafter. The matter had been repeatedly coming up for hearing from time to time and the Tribunal had been making co...
Delhi State Entp. Association and ors. Vs. Delhi State Industrial Deve ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT519; 1994(30)DRJ609
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) Petitioners, in essence, are aggrieved by the fixation of price to the lands and sheds (referred as industrial sheds), by the 1st respondent Corporation (also referred as DSIDC). A stretch of land measuring 26 acres in Rohtak Road was developed and sheds were constructed by DSIDC. They were allotted to young, unemployed entrepreneurs under a scheme evolved to train unemployed engineers in self-employment and then to allot industrial sheds to them to carry on Small Scale industries. Each land with a shed was initially granted on lease, in or about the year 1976 or 1977. Thereafter, there was an announcement that these sheds would be sold to the lessees on hire- purchase basis. According to the petitioners, the promise held out was to charge only actual cost of the land and the cost of construction as the hire- purchase price and that Dsidc has ignored this principle by demanding unreasonable amount as the said price. (2) The contesting respondents contend th...
Rajesh Aggarwal Vs. Balbir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi345; 56(1994)DLT83; 1994(31)DRJ19; 1994RLR441
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed on behalf of the plaintiff. This application was filed along with suit and this Court on 3.8.89 restrained the defendants by ex parte injunction from alienating, creating any lease or parting with possession of the property in dispute. (2) Defendant No. 1 entered into an Agreement to sell with the plaintiff in relation to property bearing No.33, West Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi built over a plot measuring 637.33 sq.yds., for a total sale consideration of Rs.46 lakhs. Defendant No.1 received Rs.1 lakh at the time of execution of the Agreement on 7.4.89 (Rupees fifty thousand in cash and Rupees fifty thousand by cheque). (3) It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff made several efforts to persuade defendant No.1 to obtain no objection and Income-tax Clearance Certificate from the concerned authorities for the purposes of registration and execution of t...
Raymond Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT727TriDel
1. At the outset a question arose whether the jurisdiction to hear this matter lies with the Special Bench or Regional Bench.2. Ld. D.R. raising this point submitted that in this case the only two questions involved are with reference to the relevant date in terms of Section 15 for determination of the rate of duty and tariff valuation and the relevant date for the purpose of calculating interest on warehouse goods which had been cleared subsequently from the Warehouse.Since the matter relates only to the determination of relevant dates and the rest follows merely as a consequence, therefore, the jurisdiction would lie with the Regional Bench in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Navin Chemicals reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3.3. Ld. Counsel opposed the prayer. He stated that the Supreme Court judgment was in different context and circumstances. In the present case the appellants imported the goods and filed into bond Bill of Entry on 9-1-1992 and subsequently a Green Bi...
Nitisoya Diamond Tools Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT49TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 118-C/DLH/92, dated 11-8-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. By this order, the ld. Collector has confirmed the classification of the imported product, 'Natural Graphite' weighing 4986 kgs. of declared FOB value at US $ 9526/-, under Heading 3801.90 of CTA. The claim for classification under Heading 2504.90 was rejected on the basis that the goods have undergone processes in excess of the ones mentioned in Note I of Chapter 25. The next point of dispute raised by the deptt. was with regard to the valuation of the goods. The value was loaded by department in accordance with an invoice from M/s. Le Carbone Lorraine, France, a manufacturer of graphite, bearing invoice No. 809981, dated 12-7-1991. The importer has contended that they had imported a consignment of Japanese origin from M/s. KAZ International (P) Ltd., Singapore under the supplier's invoice No. KSZ/92/909, dated 2-4-1992 against contract dated 10-3-1992 be...
Preeti Srivastava Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1425; 1994(31)DRJ314
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner, a student of Class X in Delhi Public School, R.K. Purarn, New Delhi, filed this petition through her guardian under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, order or direction to the respondents, namely. Central Board of Secondary Education and the Delhi Public School, to permit her to sit in the forthcoming public examination of Class X conducted by the first respondent which was scheduled to commence in March 1994. Petitioner also sought quashing of letter dated 25 January 1994 issued by the second respondent the school. In this letter the Principal of the school informed the petitioner that there was shortage of attendance of the petitioner, a student of Class X, and that it could not be possible to issue her board roll number since her attendances in the class for the year 1993-94 were only 20% and that the minimum attendance requirement was 75%. Attention of the petitioner was also drawn to rule 1.I.I of the Rules framed by the first resp...
Anand Gopal Jhingran and ors. Vs. Arjun Dev
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT312; 1994(30)DRJ562
Sat Pal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th July, 1980 passed by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, the then Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in Rca No-245/77.(2) Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the appellants who are the owners and landlords with regard to the property bearing No.5958, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the act) against three tenants including the respondent Shri Arjun Dev who is a tenant with regard to a flat on the first floor of the said house. Admittedly, this flat was let out to the respondent for residential purpose. Shri O.P. Dwedi, the then IIIrd Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by his order dated 24th January, 1977 allowed the eviction petition of the landlords against all the three tenants including the respondent.(3) Aggrieved by the order dated 24th January, 1977 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal bearing Rca No.2...
Bpl (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT645TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. C/3/1930/82, dated 8-1-1985 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants had imported electric motors and claimed their assessment under the then existing Tariff Heading 85.01(1) of CTA on the ground that motors they had imported were internally geared motors and since such motors are excluded under Heading 85.01(2) these would fall under the residuary Item No. 85.01(1) of the then existing CTA.3. The Asstt. Collector held that internally geared can mean only such motors comprising of gears and motors housed in the same casing, not separable and manufactured as one integral unit and, therefore, classified these geared motors under 85.01(2) since the geared motor imported by the appellant are not considered by him as internally geared motors.4. Collector (Appeals) rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that geared internally means gear fitted inside the motor housing and ...
M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT812TriDel
1. This is an application for condonation of delay with reference to appeal arising out of order-in-appeal No. 369-C.E./APPL/IND/91, dated 8/9-6-1993 of Collector (Appeals), Indore under which the appellant claims for refund of excise duty for the period 1-1-1977 to 31-3-1989 was rejected as time barred.2. The applicant, M.P. Electricity Board are a body corporate duly constituted under Section 5(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 with its registered office at Rampur Jabalpur (MP) and have territorial jurisdiction throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh.3. The admitted facts are that the order-in-appeal dated 8/9-6-1993 was received by the applicant on 14-6-1993, limitation period expired on 13/14-9-1993 and the applicant's application for condonation of delay was received in the Registry at New Delhi on 18-10-1993.4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant Shri L.P. Asthana drawing our attention to the sequence of events listed in the Misc. application filed subsequently containing addit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »