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.
Metalfab Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT734TriDel
1. This an appeal filed against Order No. 427-C.E. /DLII/91, dated 16-4-1991 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi under which he upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector disallowing Modvat Credit on the ground that the declaration was not filed in the Divisional Office.2. The brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Picket Long and Short, angle iron picket, roof through type spinter proof falling under Heading Nos. 73.26 and 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff.2.1 They vide their Letter No. MFY/90-91/Excise, dated 5-4-1990 filed a Modvat declaration under Rule 57-G and which has duly received by the Inspector, Central Excise, Range-16, MOD-EI Shopping Centre, Milan Complex, Karampura, New Delhi and a copy of the declaration filed which shows M.S. Ingots, M.S. Blooms and Billets as their input in the manufacture of their final product. The said declaration was also sent through post by U.P.C. to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excis...
Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT653TriDel
1. M/s. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd., Vallabh Vidyanagar have filed these three appeals against two orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay and an order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The issue in all these appeals being the same, they are being disposed of by this order.2. It is the company's claim that it manufactures material handling equipment, such as cranes, conveyor systems, wagon tripplers, reclaimers, etc. which are stated to be mainly used in thermal power stations. The company fabricates such machinery or equipment. Because of size and weight of such goods, it is not possible for them to be supplied in assembled form. It is claimed that they are, therefore, supplied in disassembled condition, with the result that the supply may be spread over a number of days. It is the company's claim that these goods manufactured by it should be classified under Headings 84.25, 84.26, 84.28 or any other such heading in Chapter 84 which is for complet...
Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT909TriDel
1. M/s Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. being aggrieved by the order of Collector of Central Excise have filed this appeal. The Collector, Central Excise in his order had held :- "The party's contention that the distinction between the polyester waste and polyester fibre can be made only by the physical examination of the raw material and by reference to the documents of purchase is not correct. The Central Excise Tariff classification of Yarn between Tariff Item 18-III(i) and 18-III(ii) is based on the non-cellulosic and cellulosic fibre content of the Yarn, which in any case cannot be determined by Visual/Physical examination of the yarn/raw materials. On the basis of the facts discussed above, I hold that the charges as levelled in the show cause notices are well established. I, therefore, pass orders as follows. I order M/s Modern Syntex (India) Ltd., Alwar to pay duty as demanded in the show cause notice. I order M/s Modern Syntex Ltd. to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of confiscati...
Usha India Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1302; 1994(2)ARBLR321(Delhi); 1994(30)DRJ418; 1994RLR487
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. Office has made a mistake in giving I.A. No. 999/94 as well as Suit No. 251/94 to the application filed under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Only suit number was liable to be given and not I.A. number. So, this I.A. number should be treated as cancelled. Office to make necessary corrections in the registers. 2. I have heard the arguments for deciding the two applications by which the petitioner has sought relief of temporary injunction in respect of the telephone bills raised by the respondent pertaining to telephone No. 608527. The main petition has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator for deciding the disputes arising between the parties with regard to the two bills raised by the respondent. I may mention that at first the provisional bill was raised claiming a sum of Rs. 18,33,042/- in respect of the said telephone and the petition was filed seeking reference of said disputed bill for decision by an arbi...
Jeet Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)76; AIR1995Delhi232; 1994(30)DRJ531
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) The petitioners seek quashing of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which is dated 30.10.1963 as also a declaration made under Section dated 16.1.1969 as well as all subsequent proceedings in respect of the petitioner's lands referred in the writ petition. There are quite a large number of lands, if khasra Numbers is an indication. According to the petitioners they are still in possession of the lands and are residing therein. Admittedly, the lands were notified for acquisition for the development of Narela Township. The petitioners nowhere plead ignorance of the proceedings. According to the petitioners the preliminary notification under section 4 was issued on 30.6.1963 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 16.06.1969. However, award came to be made only on 22.09.1986. Petitioners further asserted that inspire of the award they continued to be in possession. They question the validity of the acquisition proceedings ...
N. K. Rajgarhia Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)631
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A. M. :The assessed is in appeal against order dt. 5th Nov., 1993 of the learned CIT(A).2. First ground of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of commission of Rs. 22,50,000 and Rs. 46,65,000 paid to M/s. Giriraj Fertilizers & Chemicals (P) Ltd., Shikohabad (M/s. GFC, for short) and M/s. Anand Praty abhut Vit Nigam Ltd. (APVN, for short) respectively. The relevant facts are that the assessed is an individual. He is doing business in the name and style of M/s. Texcomash Exports. For the relevant previous year the assesseds sources of his business income are export of spare parts to Russia (Rs. 34,29,130) and also commission aggregating to Rs. 1,34,60,308 received from the following parties :Rs.(i) M/s. Kelvinator India Ltd. For export of 80,000 pieces of compressors of USSR 22,58,520(ii) Commission from M/s. Nirma Ltd. for export of detergents to USSR 43,20,000(iii) Commission received from M/s. Nirma Ltd. for export of detergents to USS...
A.K. Bansal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ508
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) In all these writ petitions, petitioners question the selections made to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ; 60 persons were selected and subsequently appointed; of these 44 persons were already working as Junior Engineers (departmental candidates) in the very Corporation, and the remaining 16 were outside candidates.(2) The selection process is challenged on the ground that - (i) most of the selectees were ineligible even to apply for the post; (ii) in the selection process 50% of the marks were allocated for viva voce test, while the remaining were distributed for qualification (33-1/3%) and professional experience (16-2/3%); (iii) evaluation of the candidates is attacked as arbitrary to help a few favored candidates and (iv) the notification inviting the application was not advertised, but was sent only to the Employment Exchange and circulated in the general wing of the Corporation; this resulted in the denial...
Hari Singh Vs. Santosh Seth
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT628; (1994)108PLR72
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order shall govern the disposal of RA-9/87, I.A.674/88 and I.A. 9308/91.(2) A brief resume of facts in the background, leading to the filing and hearing of these applications is necessary. The plaintiff (who has moved these two applications) is the owner of house No. C-32, Green Park, New Delhi. He filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant/non-petitioner which was dismissed by the Addl RentController, but was decreed by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. The order of eviction was made on 30.7.81. The plaintiff got vacant possession on 27.8.1991. The plaintiff then filed suit No-1676/82 seeking assessment of mesne profits for alleged unauthorised use and occupation of the premises by the defendant for the period10.11.1974 to 27.8.81 with interest and special costs. The Court framed a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt Chander Kali v. Jagdish Singh Thakur, 1977 Sc 2262, this Court ...
Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. Vs. Anand Machinery Stores and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1241; 56(1994)DLT117
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,36,257/90P. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 is a partnership-firm comprising of defendants 2 & 3 as its partners and the plaintiff, which holds sole distributorship rights of different kinds of machines and engines, had entered into a dealership agreement with defendant No. 1 in respect of territory of Meerut District and on the basis of the said dealership agreement dated February 1, 1967. The sales were made to the defendants from time to time and the defendant has been making payments and all the sales were made subject to terms printed on the face of the invoices, namely, interest @ 12% per annum will be charged on all accounts remaining unpaid one month after the delivery and the defendants were also liable to pay sales-tax but were liable to pay full rate of tax if the defendants had failed to supply C forms (i.e. Central Sales Tax Forms). In para 6 of the plaint the plaintiff gave details of various supplie...
Deepak Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT817TriDel
1. These two appeals arise out of a common order dated 5-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay wherein the Collector had enhanced the declared value. The Collector had ordered the CIF value of the imported goods in Bill of Entry No. 1391/108 dated 24-7-1991 for 48 cartons to be enhanced to Rs. 1,38,000.00 as against declared CIF value of Rs. 82,102/-. Likewise, the Collector ordered CIF value in respect of another Bill of Entry No. 1149/75 dated 12-6-1991 where the clearance had already been taken to be enhanced to Rs. 1,43,000/- as against declared CIF value of Rs. 84,942.00. He, further, ordered confiscation of the goods for misdeclaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A redemption fine of Rs. 70,000/- was levied.He, further, imposed a total penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the appellants, M/s. Deepak Electronics. A further penalty totalling Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the appellant, Shri Parmod B. Agarwal.2. The brief facts are that an intelligence was gath...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »