Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 6 of about 128 results (0.020 seconds)Leszek Kwiat Kowski Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)495; 61(1996)DLT691; 1996(36)DRJ251
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) RULED.B. (2) By this habeas corpus petition the petitioner challenges the order of detention dated May 8, 1995, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.(3) The petitioner has raised several grounds questioning the detention order. However, during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the point that representation submitted by the petitioner against his detention was not considered by the respondents. It is submitted that a representation addressed to the Finance Minister was handed over by the detenu to the Superintendent, Central Jail (CUFEPOSA Unit), on August 8,1995, and a copy of the same was sent directly to the Finance Minister by registered post on August 23, 1995. Learned counsel has brought to our notice a copy of the postal receipt No. 906 which is at page 37 of the writ petition.(4) On t...
Tag this Judgment!Gurpreet Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT347TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellants at the material time were engaged in the manufacture of pneumatic tyres of rubber and inner tubes of tyres of various motor vehicles. It was the case of the Department that on 22-8-1989 the Preventive Staff of Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, visited the factory of the cippellants and shortage of 81 tyres valued Rs. 4050/- involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1275.75 was found. It was further the case of the Department that a diary was found lying on the table of Shri Surinder Singh, one of the partners of the appellants' firm, and on enquiry he (Shri Surinder Singh) told that the diary contained the details of tyres and tubes manufactured by them during 13-2-1989 to 21-8-1989. The same was taken into possession by the officers. Statement of Shri Surinder Singh was recorded. During further inve...
Tag this Judgment!Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT445TriDel
1. This is an appeal against order dated 9-3-1992 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi. The issue involved in this case is whether Modvat credit can be availed by a manufacturer of ice cream on dry ice which is used for putting ice cream in marketable condition.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri S.V. Arya, Ld. Advocate submitted that the matter stands settled in favour of the appellant by Tribunal's Final Order No. A/770/93-NRB, dated 28-9-1993 wherein it has been held that solid carbon-dioxide used in the container in which Ice cream and Kulfi is transported to the market would be admissible for Modvat credit. On behalf of the respondent Shri P. Dass, SDR reiterated the finding in the impugned order. He, however, conceded that the matter stands settled by the Tribunal's decision cited by the Ld.Counsel for the Appellants, 3. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Mon-Santo Manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpal Silicate and Glass Inds. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT313TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 18-11-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri Pankaj Malik, learned C.A. submitted that in this case the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on the ground that the appellants had availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 62,335/- without waiting for the acknowledgement of the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G(1). He added that in addition to the penalty imposed on account of alleged incorrect availment of Modvat credit a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was also imposed on account of alleged shortage of 164.1 kgs. of goods of DPC Copper Wire with reference to the RG-1 balance and payment of duty @ 5% instead of 10% on goods valued at Rs. 5,300/- has been held as sustainable. Shri Malik submitted that there was a clear admission in the impugned order that the appellants had filed the required declaration under Rule 57G(1) and during the relevant period they were also filing RT-1...
Tag this Judgment!Khanna Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT109TriDel
1. These appeals, arising from common question of fact and law and from a common order 40-57/CE/94, dated 30-8-1994 of Collector of Central Excise (Chandigarh), were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order. It is alleged that M/s. Khanna Industries, Appellant No. 1, are engaged in the manufacture of sanitary and bath fittings, and the goods were affixed with brand name of 'ARK' in stylised script since September, 1991. They had been availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The Officers of Chandigarh Collectorate gathered information that the brand name 'ARK' in stylised script in the course of trade known as brand name/trade name of M/s. Arksan Pvt. Ltd., who are a trading company and that they were not eligible for the grant of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. Consequent upon initiation of proceedings against the appellants, Collector held vide Adjudication Order aforesaid that the exemption availed of by the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Usha Processors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT109TriDel
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that, the respondents are processing Rayon and Synthetic Yarn falling under T.I. 18 from basic raw material of Cashmilon fibre, which is a mixture of Shrinkable and non-shrinkable fibre, out of which Yarn is made by spinning process and the same is then steamed and processed in Hank dyeing machines in their factory. A Show Cause Notice dated 6-3-1976 was issued by the concerned Superintendent of Central Excise calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the duty amounting to Rs. 2,50,977.85 be not demanded from them alleging that they had cleared 100% acrylic textured yarn, that is to say, bulked yarn without payment of Central Excise Duty leviable thereon under sub-item (ii) of T.I. 18 for the period from 1-3-1975 to 29-4-1975 and 30-4-1975 to 16-12-1975. The respondents hotly contested the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjit Singh Sangwan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1(1996)CLT83; 1996(36)DRJ192
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner, claiming himself to be a director of Krishak Bharti Co-op. Ltd., New Delhi, has filed this petition seeking quashing of the resolution dated 20.4.95 passed by the Board of Directors of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd.(IFFCC), for short) followed by a direction restraining the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner's functioning as a director on the Board of Krishak Bharti Co-op.Ltd. (KRIBHCO, for short)- respondent No.3.(2) Kribhco and Iffco are both multi state co-op. Societies incorporated under and governed by the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). According to the petitioner he was nominated by the respondent No.2 by resolution dated 6.7.94 on the Board of Directors of Kribhco in terms of bye-laws No.37 and 38. The term of the nomination was for three years and would come to an end only in December, 1997. However, the petitioner's term as Director on the...
Tag this Judgment!Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas743(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner, a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (SICA) filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order dated March 17, 1994 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (CEGAT) passed under section 35-F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, (for short 'the Act') whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit duty amount of Rs.1.40 crores as a pre deposit for the appeal to be heard. Rest of the demand was, however, stayed. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of chassis for motor vehicles. It says when the chassis are cleared from its factory premises it pays duty under heading 87.06 of the Central Excise Tariff whether the chassis sold to individual buyers or given to an independent body builder. In the present case, the body builder is Sutlej Coach Builders Pvt. It is stated that M/s. Sutlej Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. fabricates the b...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Employees' Union Vs. Additional Commissioner (Water), DWS an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT770; [1996(73)FLR963]; (1996)ILLJ1151Del
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) Rule D.B. The petitioner-Union has come to this Court by a public interest writ petition to inform this Court of arbitrary actions on the part of the respondents to impose a condition of service in cases of compassionate employment, that a widow who has been given compassionate employment shall not be permitted to remarry, and that she will lose her job in the event she got remarried. (2) The condition which is impugned in this petition is that 'Meera Rani shall not remarry failing which her services will be terminated'. (3) Compassionate employment was given to Meera Rani. She was married to a Municipal employee Shobha Ram, who died leaving three children from his first wife, and one child from Meera Rani. (4) At least as far as one child of Shobha Ram is concerned, Meera Rani was the mother and as a mother, she took all responsibilities for rearing that child. There is no averment that the child, Meera Rani and Shobha Ram had, has been abandoned. (5) The condi...
Tag this Judgment!Lacto Cosmetics (Vapi) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT354TriDel
1. These two appeals (A. No. E/1090/91-Aby the appellants company M/s.Lacto Cosmetics (Vapi) (P) Ltd. and the other A. No. E/1091/91-A by its Director Shri N.N.V. Prasad are directed against the impugned order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara.2. The appellants M/s. Lacto Cosmetics (Vapi) (P) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of "LACTO CALAMINE LOTION", under a brand name of 'CROOKES' LACTO CALAMINE' since January, 1985. The said brand name belongs to M/s. Duphar Interfran Ltd., Bombay. It was the case of the Revenue that on scrutiny of the record it was noticed that the appellants were found raising Debit Notes regularly in favour of M/s.Duphar Interfran Ltd. and used to recover the extra money (prises) under the heading 'Packing, Forwarding and Despatch Expenses' at the following uniform rate :- (i) Bottle of Lacto Calamine Lotion - 120 ml.@ 0.58 ps per bottle; (ii) bottle of Lacto Calamine Lotion - 60 ml. @ 0.38 ps. per bottle; and (iii) ...
Tag this Judgment!