Delhi Court October 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 7 of about 109 results (0.023 seconds)T.K. Abdullah Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)750; 60(1995)DLT889; 1995(35)DRJ403
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, at the pre-detention stage, apprehending his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called COFEPOSA) seeking the quashing of the detention order F.No. 673/43/94 dated 24.5.1994 passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA.(2) Petitioner contends (in para 1 of the petition) that a few days before filing of the writ petition, the respondents wanted to detain the petitioner, came to the petitioner's premises with the detention order, the petitioner was not there and the detention order was copied by the petitioner's 'relative' in the petitioner's absence. The alleged copy of the detention order is filed as Annexure P-1. It is contended that from the copy it is clear that the petitioner is sought to be detained as an 'abettor' of smuggling activities. This contention is based on the alleged copy of the detention order. Of course, it is common groun...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Aggarwal Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996RLR60
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This petition is directed against an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 25.3.95 allowing the applications of the respondent landlady under 0. 11 R. 1 and 0. 11 R. 12 CPC. The petitioners have challenged the said order by way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by making a similar grievance and this Court had vide its judgment dated 13.9.94 rejected the petitions filed by the present petitioners.(2) The respondent landlord filed an eviction case on grounds contained in S. 14.(1),(b) (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging amongst other things that the tenants bad acquired or been allotted another residential accommodation bearing no. 89. Sunder Nagar and that neither the tenant/respondent no. 1 nor any member of his family was residing in the tenanted premises for the last more than six months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)LC133Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd., Pimpri, Pune (hereinafter referred to as 'MSP), being aggrieved with the order dated 24-9-1985 of the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. In the show cause notice dated 21-6-1985, it was alleged that the appellants had manufactured a special purpose complete machine - powder compacting press model ME-40 II, falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old tariff), and installed it in their premises without paying the central excise duty, without recording its production in their Central Excise records and without issuing any central excise gate pass. The machine so installed was used for production of sintered bushes and parts in their factory. The value of the machine was Rs. 3,23,934.12. The matter was adjudicated by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, who vide his Order-in-Original dated 24-9-1985 held that the machinery m...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT831TriDel
1. The above appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order dated 20-11-1992 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay in the following circumstances: 2. The respondents herein, who are manufacturers of textile fabrics, were granted an Industrial Licence No. L/23(5)161 /MMF & S/73, dated 31-10-1973 for substantial expansion and the capacity of the unit was determined as 450 Power Looms and 4 Warp Knitting machines (existing 125 power looms and 4 Warp Knitting machines) for the manufacture of Art silks/synthetic yarn woven fabrics and for the manufacture of knitted fabrics. The respondents were further permitted to expand the capacity of the said Industrial unit by installation of two circular knitting machines for manufacture of art silk knitted fabrics. By Licence dated 29-5-1975 the Government granted further substantial expansion of the installed capacity by 8 Warp Knitting machines and 8 Circular Knitting machines - corresponding to total consumption of 320 tons of caprolac...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. G.R.P. Roofings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC613Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-7-1988, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, allowing the appeal of the assessee and holding that the product fibre glass reinforced plastic roofing sheet is classifiable under subheading No. 3922.90 of the GET, 1985 in terms of Chapter Note 11(b) of Chapter 39 of GET, 1985. The Assistant Collector decided the question of classification of the impugned product in terms of the classification list filed by the assessee and held that the plastic sheets falling under three different Headings 39.19 is applicable to self-adhesive sheet : 39.21 is applicable to cellular, sheet and 39.20 is applicable to non-cellular, sheets including reinforced materials. As the assessees' product is glass fibre reinforced plastic sheet of non-cellular plastic material other than polyvinyl chloride and regenerated cellulose and therefore, the product are correctly classifiable as a rigid (reinforced) sheet under Tariff H...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmir Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC615Tri(Delhi)
1. The above mentioned four appeals have been filed by M/s. Kashmir Vanaspati Ltd. against the order passed by the Additional Collector whereas the two appeals have been filed by the Collector, Central Excise against the order of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). As the issues for determination in all these six appeals are the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The detailed particulars of the six appeals are as under : Appeal No. Period of demand Date of SCN Amount of duty Rs.Appeals by E/2546/91 1-1-82 to 15-9-83 7-4-84 3,44,253.04M/s.Kash- E/2547/91 1-4-84 to 30-9-84 5-8-85 1,96,902.45mir Vanas- E/2548/91 1-10-84 to 31-3-85 4-12-85 1,70,957.14pati. Limited E/2549/91 25-9-83 to 31-3-84 13-11-84 1,34,634.37Appeals by E/4466/92 1-1-87 to 27-2-88 4-8-87 81,044.99C C E E/4467/92 11-3-86 to 31-12-86 - 5,83,432.40 3. The facts in brief leading to the above appeals are that M/s.Kashmir Vanaspati Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable product. They sell the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Garware Plastics and Polyester
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT271TriDel
1. The issue for determination in the above appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Collector (Appeals) is the eligibility of "TV Front Cabinet with metal inserts" falling under T.I. 68 of the First Schedule to the Erstwhile Central Excise Tariff manufactured by the respondents to the benefit of total exemption from duty under Notification No. 182/82, dated 11-5-1982. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned SDR and Shri R.G. Sheth, learned Counsel. "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts articles made of plastics, falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon: (a) such articles are produced out of artificial resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers in any form falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 15A of the said First Schedule on which the d...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT212TriDel
1. The appellant-assessee is a manufacturer of Staple Fibre at Nagda.Sulphuric Acid has to be used in the process of such manufacture. The assessee is therefore manufacturing Sulphuric Acid for captive consumption. The period under consideration is 10-11-1976 to 31-8-1978.We are told that Writ Petition filed by the assessee regarding certain aspects of the case was dismissed by the High Court and appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. There is no dispute till the period 10-11-1976 when assessee was paying duty at tariff value. The dispute has arisen only for the subsequent period since tariff value was removed and value is to be determined ad valorem. The assessee filed price list on 17-11-1976 of Sulphuric Acid manufactured and consumed.The price list showed the price on the basis of cost of production plus profit. The price list was approved on 18-11-1976. The Collector issued notice to the appellants to show cause why the valuation on the basis of the value of comparable goods...
Tag this Judgment!Fertilisers and Chemicals, Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT395TriDel
1. M/s. Fertilisers and Chemicals, Travancore Limited filed a claim for refund of duty paid on a consignment of stainless steel plates imported by it in August, 1982. The basis for the claim was that the company, through its engineering division, fabricated machinery from these plates for use in its fertiliser plant, and the goods were therefore eligible for the benefit of Notification 150/81-Cus. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on the ground that the conditions of the notification had not been complied with. The company has now come in appeal before us.2. Shri J.B. Koshy, Advocate for the appellant company, after satisfying the Bench that clearance had been received from the Committee of Secretaries constituted by the Cabinet Secretariat to pursue the appeal, argued the case. He said that the conditions in the notification which the lower authorities found had not been complied with were that the machinery manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshi Lal Vs. Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)550; 60(1995)DLT622
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner by this revision petition assails order dated 9.5.1995, passed by Shri Kanwaljeet Arora, dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement. (2) The facts giving rise to the revision petition may be recapitulated :- (I)The father of the respondents, Shri Asa Ram had filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent of the defendant/petitioner from one of the shops in Wz 507, Palam Enclave in the Revenue State of Village Palam, Delhi. The shop was let out to the petitioner/ defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 175.00 . (ii) The respondent claims to have terminated the tenancy of petitioner and filed the suit on his failure to vacate. One of the averments in para 4 of the plaint was that the premises in suit was situated in the rural area in the revenue estate of village Palam Enclave where Delhi Rent Control Act had no application. Further that the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act had not been extended to the rural areas. Th...
Tag this Judgment!