Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Vashisht Iron and Steel Rolling
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT168TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 29-3-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Keys (Railway Track Material) falling under T.I. 68 were served with show cause alleging inter alia that they were not eligible for exemption under Notification No.89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979 and Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 on the ground that investment made on plant and machinery installed in their factory from time to time was in excess of Rs. 10 lacs. After usual adjudication proceedings the Assistant Collector held that total investment of the appellants' unit on plant and machinery during the material period has exceeded Rs. 10 lacs. He, therefore, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 71,034.17 Paise. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants preferred an appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!Lans Metals Private Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT241TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee M/s. Lans Metals Private Limited against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants have cleared Aluminium scrap from Baroda to their sister concern at Bombay. Shri Madhav Rao appearing for the appellants submitted that point to be considered in this case is whether scrap, as such, was liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 27(a) as it stood at the relevant time. He submitted that there were two demands in this case, wherein show cause notice issued on 17-11-1975 for the period December, 1973 to August, 1975 and second show cause notice dated 26-10-1976 was issued for September, 1975. He drew our attention to the relevant Tariff Item 27(a) as it stood at the relevant time in which it was specified that in any crude form (including ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, billets, shots and pellets.) He said that 27(a) was amended by introducing 27(aa) specifying the item Waste and scrap from 1981 and...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupinder Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)585; 1996CriLJ2322; 1996(36)DRJ198
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) The petitioner,Shri Bhupinder Singh is challenging the order of preventive detention dated 19.7.95 and served on him on 24.7.95. It was passed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter called COFEPOSA).(2) The brief facts as set out in the grounds of detention are as follows: (A)Information was received on 18.4.95 that the petitioner, Bhupinder Singh was having business at 142, Mcd Market, Karol Bagh New Delhi. Petitioner was selling foreign exchange to one Navneet Bhatia, resident of WZ-11, Rattan Park, New Delhi and the latter was carrying huge amounts on his person. On 18.4.95, Navneet Bhatia was intercepted and search of his person revealed Us $ 30,000 and search of his car revealed Indian currency of Rs. 18,00,000 and these were seized. Search of the premises of Navneet Bhatia revealed Us $ 15,151, D.M. 2200, Saudi Riyals 2600.00 , H.K. $ 500, Jap...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Linkers Associates Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: II(1996)BC54; 62(1996)DLT507; (1996)113PLR58
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) At the outset, Counsel for the petitioners has made it clear that the matter if already pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and for that reason, it is not possible for the petitioners to arrange for any payment at this stage.(2) He has raised the following grounds to challenge the impugned order :- 1.That 20 complaints were filed in respect of dishonour of 20 cheques, but pre-cognizance evidence was recorded only in one case and not in each case. thereforee, the cognizance taken in other 19 cases is bad in law. 2. Taking cognizance by mere placing carbon copies of the order paused in the lead case, on the record of other 19 cases by changing cause title and without ordering that the evidence recorded in the lead case, will also be read as evidence in the other 19 cases is bad in law. 3. It is pointed out that even in the lead case the Magistrate passed one non-speaking order taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M.L. Dalmia and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT70
Anil Dev Singh, J (1) This order will dispose of Fao (OS) Nos-70 and 67 of 1995. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated October 25,1994 in Suits Nos. 342A and 343Aof 1986 whereby the award of the Arbitrator dated October 31,1985 was made a rule of the Court except in regard to claim No. 5. It appears that certain disputes arose between the appellant, Union of India, and respondent contractor, on whom the appellant placed work order for the construction of 200 meter high Rcc Tv Tower at Jullundur. The disputes were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator gave his award in respect of the claims and counter claims raised before him. In this appeal we are concerned only with the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as it upholds the award of the Arbitrator in respect of Claim Nos. 3,4 and 8 preferred by the respondent. (2) Under claim No. 3 the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 14,95,460.76 in favor, of the respondent-contractor. The claim of the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Sawai Bhawani Singh Vs. Jagat Sing and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi715
M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. (1) This is an appeal preferred by the 1st defendant in Suit No. 870186 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-2-1995 dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11.CPC. (2) The 1st respondent herein, Maharaj Jagat Singh, who is the plaintiff and the appellant Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh ( 1st; defendant) and two others are brothers and are the sons of late Maharaj Sawai Man Singh, the former ruler of Jaipur in Rajasthan. The said Maharaj Sawai Man Singh died on 24-6-1970 leaving behind him his 2 widows, 4 sons (including the appellant and the 1st respondent) I daughter and two grand children. The 1st respondent herein has filed a suit for partition against the appellant and others in respect of plaint Schedule properties. He also prayed for relief of accounts the appellant 1st defendant in respect of various properties and cancellation of power of attorney dated 29-8-1985 executed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilizers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT539TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Collector, Central Excise. The Collector, Central Excise had demanded duty amounting to Rs. 5,85,679.50 on Waste Liquor-I and Waste Liquor-II manufactured and removed/captively used during the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1987. The ld. Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs. on the appellants.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Caprolactum. Shri A.S. Akolkar, Manager (Excise & Customs) of the appellants company, in his statement dated 23-4-1987 stated that they utilized Benzene, Ammonia Gas, Synthesis gas, Carbon dioxide, Sulphur dioxide, Oleum and Caustic soda for manufacture of caprolactum classifiable under Chapter 29; that in the process of manufacture, the waste liquor I and waste liquor II came out as by-product. It was stated by him that the above two products are of no use and if they are drained out, it would create pollution and the...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Verma Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT277TriDel
1. The appellants had imported one car Fonda Accord EX Model 1990 (Capacity 1997 cc) 4-Door Sedan fitted with Air Conditioner and R.C.D.R vide Bill of Entry No. 102238 dated 21-1-1992. The CIF value of the imported car was taken as Japanese Yen 2025000 (Rs. 4,16,238.43) on the basis of the manufacturer price list and after deducting the freight charges, insurance charges, and depreciation @ 19% without allowing the trade discount. The FOB value of the car was worked out to Rs. 3,18,549.58. The FOB value, the freight charges, insurance charges and landing charges were added to arrive at the net assessable value of Rs. 3,44,242.72 only. In addition, the value of the Air conditioner and R.C.D.R fitted in the car, appraised after allowing the depreciation was taken as Rs. 17,881.60 and Rs. 4795/- respectively. The value of some spares imported with the car were appraised to Rs. 3000/-. The total customs duty on the imported car as well as on Air conditioner, R.C.D.R fitted in the car, and...
Tag this Judgment!Khanna Rubber Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT251TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by the above appellants with reference to common impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Hence they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 29-9-1981 at about 17.00 hrs, the Central Excise Anti-Evasion Officers of Delhi Collectorate Hqrs., New Delhi intercepted one Tempo No. DHL-7845 loaded with Latex Foam Articles falling under Item No. 16A(1) of Central Excise Tariff, near the factory of M/s. Khanna Rubbers, 220, Piragarhi, Delhi. On demand, the driver of the said tempo produced one hand-written proforma Invoice No. 80-81/108, dated 29-9-1981 for Rs. 5,521.00 issued by M/s. Khanna Rubbers in favour of M/s. Goverdhan Dass and Sons, Rajouri Garden. In order to verify the genuineness of the document accompanying the consignment, the Central Excise Officers immediately visited the factory premises of M/s. Khanna Rubbers. The factory was found to be engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Chadha Sudhir Kumar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD470(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the DC (Appeals) dated 4-2-1991 for the assessment year 1987-88 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1987.2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1987-88, the AO made the assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 by his order dated 30-3-1988 on a total income of Rs. 1,15,361. In the assessment order it was stated that notice for the levy of penalty under Section 271B has been issued separately. In the notice issued under Section 271B dated 30-3-1988, the AO charged that the assessee "has not filed the Audit Report prescribed under Section 44AB read with Rule 6G without reasonable cause explained". In response to the same, the assessee filed a written reply dated 27-3-1989. In the said reply, the assessee stated that a comprehensive reply had already been filed, that the said reply has not been referred to before issuing the notice dated 30-3-1988, that Section 271B was attracted only i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »