Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 11 of about 158 results (0.026 seconds)Texas Instruments Pvt Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT119TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.2. The facts which are in dispute are briefly as follows. The appellant company is an 100% E.O.U. situated in Technology Park, set up by the Government of India, Bangalore, Sometime in 1989, the appellant noticed that some items, mainly are parts and accessories of computers are missing from the factory. F.I.R. has alleged that the police and the Department of Electronics was also intimated. Police subsequently, advised that the items were untraceable. The appellant thereafter, made an application to the Assistant Collector of Customs under section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the remission of duty on these goods. The Customs, however, issued show cause notice to the appellant proposing the recovery of duty of Rs. 21,39,760.00 on the goods, interests on the duty, and the penalty. After considering the cause shown and hearing the appellant, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand for duty, and f...
Tag this Judgment!Raymond Cement Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC193Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Raymond Cement Works have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise. The Collector in his order had held :- "I, accordingly, hold that crushing of limestone constitutes manufacture and duty is payable on crushed limestone. As regards addition of profit margin in the assessable value, I do not accept the plea of the Noticee. Element of profit has to be added to value for the purposes of computation of duty on captively consumed goods in terms of Rule 6 of Valuation Rules, 1975 which stipulates that element of profit which the assessee would have earned on sale of captively consumed goods has to be added to the assessable value. The Noticee's request for cross-examination of the Central Excise Officers is not acceptable as it is considered necessary keeping in view the facts and evidence on record. The Noticee vide their letter RCW/Sales/Excise dated 3.-2-1991 have clearly admitted the fact of crushing of limestone inside their factory premises during th...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT124TriDel
1. M/s. P.C. Metal Industries, Shastri Nagar, Delhi had filed an appeal being aggrieved with the order in appeal dated 24-3-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Subsequently they also filed an application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 43,200/- and for stay of the recovery thereof.2. The stay application was heard on 8-11-1994 when Mrs. Archna Wadhwa, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Shri K.K. Jha, SDR represented the respondents.3. Mrs. Archna Wadhwa, the learned Advocate submitted that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Choke cover. The department had sought to classify these goods as parts of electrical lighting fittings, under sub-heading No. 9405.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff"), while the appellants had claimed classification under sub-heading No...
Tag this Judgment!Electronics Mechanicals Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT309TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 25-11-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on a visit to the appellants' factory on 12-11-1984 the Central Excise Officers found that they were engaged in the slitting of Jumbo Audio Magnetic Tape received from other parties on job work basis. They seized 606 spools of such slit Audio Magnetic Tapes of width not exceeding 6.5 mm valued at Rs. 12,020/-. After further investigation the appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 18-2-1985 requiring them to show cause why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 39,375/- should not be recovered from them on Slit Audio Magnetic Tapes valued at Rs. 1,50,000/- falling under Item 59(1) of Central Excise Tariff and why penalty should not be imposed on them. The appellants were also asked to show cause why 606 spools of Audio Magnetic Tapes of width not exceeding 6.5 mm seized from their factory should not be confis...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Singh and Others Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1537; ILR1995Delhi445
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Above named three appellants stand convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge. Shahdara in Sessions Case No. 65/1988 and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution of appellants could be stated as under :Appellants No. 2 Gurmukh Singh and appellant No. 3 Kashmira Singh are sons of appellant No. 1 Jeet Singh. Deceased Kartar Singh was the elder brother of accused No. 1 Jeet Singh. These three accused were residing along with their family members in a house at Hardev Puri. But in the riots, which took place after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the house belonging to the appellants was set on fire. Hence appellant Jeet Singh came to his brother Kartar Singh and Kartar Singh gave him shelter by giving one room of his...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdhani Films (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT510; (1995)110PLR1; 1995RLR205
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The suit was filed on 28.9.91. Written the suit was filed on 28.9.91.Written statement was filed on l2.3.1993.On l4.9.1993,four weeks time was allowed to the parties for filing the documents. Admission/denial of documents was carried out on20.1.1994,21.1.1994 and 24.1.1994. Issues were framed on24.10.1994. The Court allowed six weeks time to the parties for filing the list of witnesses before posting the case for trial. At this stage, both the learned Counsel for the parties have insisted on time being allowed for filing 'further documents' by reference to Chapter Viii, Rule 5(2) of Delhi High Court ( Original Side ) Rules,1967.(2) Learned Counsel for the parties were asked about the nature of documents which they proposed to file. It was stated by the learned Counsel that they were'free' to 'file any documents' considered by them to be relevant and for that purpose they were entitled to an adjournment as of right. This was not only contemplated by rules but this has...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Agarwal Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)356; 61(1996)DLT351
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This writ petition by the legal heir .of Late Shri R.S. Agarwal, (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) validity the validity of a notice dated 2 August 1991, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) proposing to re-assess certain income on the ground that it has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1987-88. (2) For the relevant assessment year, the assessed clams to have filed his return of income on 30 July 1987 in Ward 15(6), New Delhi deciding a total income of Rs. 18,55,100.00. The total income so declared included the net income of Rs. 18,240.00 from a house property at A-5, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, let out to Hotel Banjara Ltd., at a gross annual rent of Rs. 92,000.00. The total income also included income from 'Salary' from Hotel Banjara Ltd. Though the assessed claims that after filing of the said return of income a notice under Section 143(2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav Vs. the Election Commission of India and o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)463; 1995(33)DRJ204
M. Jagannatha Rao, C.J.(1) This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus quashing the order passed by the Election Commission of India (respondent No.1) on 21st May, 1991 and 15th June, 1991. A further mandamus is sought directing the Election Commission to re-consider the matter and order re-polling in such segments of the constituency which have been effected by electoral malpractices as communicated in the reports of the Electoral Officers of the constituency and the Central Government. (2) The writ petition was filed in June, 1991. Notice was ordered on 30th July, 1991. The subject matter of the writ petition is covered by a judgment a Full Bench of this Court, according to the petitioner. The Full Bench delivered judgment on 13th May, 1993 in C.W.P. No.1976 of 1991 entitled Amar Pal Singh Vs . The Chief Election Commissioner of India : AIR1993Delhi316 . There is no dispute that the point arising in the present petition before us is the same as was decided by th...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal M. Advani Vs. Estate Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT274; 1995(32)DRJ293
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questions the order of the Additional District Judge dated August 28,1990, whereby the matter has been remanded to the Estate Officer for allowing the petitioner to cross-examine certain witnesses and to conclude the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 (for short 'the Act'). (2) The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows: (3) On November 27,1984 the second respondent invited tenders for allotment of a centrally air conditioned restaurant in Palika Parking for five years on license basis. Pursuant to the invitation,the petitioner submitted his tender. According to the said tender, the petitioner offered to pay a license fee of Rs.1,20,203.00 per month for the premises in question. Besides he also agreed to pay the air conditioning charges to be determined by the second respondent. The tender of the petitioner being the highest was accepted by the ...
Tag this Judgment!United Felt Carpets Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC545Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the Order dated 22nd March, 1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-woven felt fabric having the code names FFBW-1, FFB-1 and FFB-2. The FFBW-1 variety is a non-woven felt fabric made by needle punching of layers or web of polypropylene fibres on the top surface and other synthetic fibre on the other side of a reinforcing fabric such as hessian cloth. The FFB-1 variety is also a non-woven felt fabric made by needle punching of layers of polypor-pylene fibres placed on hessian cloth to act as a reinforcement. This kind of felt fabric is subjected to calendering after needle punching. The FFB-2 is also a similar non-woven felt fabrics made by needle punching of layers of polypropylene fibres placed on reinforcement of hessian cloth, and calendering it after spraying the underside with chemical binder. In the classification lists filed from time to time the appellants claimed th...
Tag this Judgment!