Delhi Court February 1995 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.
Sureshchandra Agarwal and Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT174TriDel
1. The Collector (Appeals), Bombay by his order No. 1067/90 BCH, dated 12-7-1990 has rejected the appellants' claim of benefit of Notification No. 37/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 in respect of imported goods "ALUMINIUM OXIDE SYNTHETIC". The appellants claimed assessment at the ex-bond stage for concessional rate of duty under the said notification. The said notification grants exemption to Synthetic Aluminium Oxide imported into India for manufacturing grinding wheels and other abrasive products in excess of basic customs duty of 40% ad valorem.2. The appellants are said to be a small scale unit, inter alia engaged in the manufacture of polishing compositions for which, the appellants use aluminium oxide synthetics as one of the raw-materials. They contend that the product manufactured by them with this imported item is also an abrasive product as shown in the literature relied on by them. They contend that the term "abrasive" is something that is used for wearing down or smoothening a sur...
Kushhal Fertilizers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT888TriDel
1. M/s. Kushhal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. Roorkee have filed appeal being aggrieved from the Order-in-Original dated 13-7-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Alongwith the appeal, they have also filed stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), praying for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 57,80,363/- and penalty amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and for staying the recovery thereof pending disposal of their appeal.2. The stay application was heard on 27-1-1995 when Shri Praveen Sharma, Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri Somesh Arora, JDR represented the revenue.3. Shri Praveen Sharma, the learned Advocate stated that the order-in-original dated 13-7-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut disposed of five Show Cause Notices including the one issued to them which is dated 28-3-1994 in the present proceedings, for the period 20-3-19...
Shamsons (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT120TriDel
1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 81,000/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- demanded from the applicant.2. The applicant is a manufacturer of air-conditioners. In the course of a visit to the factory by the Central Excise Officers, it was found that there was a shortage of various raw materials which have been listed in the first page of the order of the Collector. On the basis of these shortages, investigation was conducted. The Collector's order has found that the explanation for the shortage was not satisfactory and he confirmed the demand holding that 13 air-conditioners have been manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. The penalty was also imposed on them.3. I have heard Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Advocate for the applicant's company and Shri B.D. Bhagat, JDR for the department.4. There is a considerable force in the advocate's contention that the shortage of raw materials by itself cannot leave me to conclude that the goods have been manufactured. I n...
Mela Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT358(Del); 1995RLR197
ORDER1. The appellant Mela Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for being in illegal and unauthorised possession of 5 Kgs. and 500 grams, poppy husk. 2. Briefly stated that prosecution case is that on 24-7-1990, Sub-Inspector Prakash Chand (P.W. 5) Along with A.S.I. Om Prakash was on petrol duty at departure hall of the Inter-State Bus Terminal Delhi. Following a tip off, a raiding party was organized at about 5.15 p.m. and the appellant was apprehended at platform Nos. 8 & 9 and from his possession 5.500 Kgs. of poppy husk was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW 15/A. The samples were sent for the Chemical examination, after receiving his report the charge sheet was laid. 3. The appellant in his statement un...
Clifton Electroniks and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT378; 1995(32)DRJ750; [1996(74)FLR1947]; (1995)IILLJ894Del
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a writ petition by the first petitioner, an industrial establishment and the second petitioner. Managing partner of the first petitioner, questioning the recovery notice dated November 1,1994 issued by third respondent. Labour Officer, and recovery certificate dated November 25,1994 issued by the same authority (Annexure-F). The facts in brief are as under:-(2) The petitioners decided to close its factory unit with effect from March 31,1993. It is also alleged that on January 1,1993 the petitioners made an application to the appropriate government, viz., Delhi Administration for seeking permission to close the unit under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act') but inspire of it Under Secretary-cum-Labour Commissioner, National Capital Territory of Delhi Region issued a letter (recovery certificate) dated July 26,1993 requiring the District Collection Officer (Collector) Tis Hazari to recover a sum of Rs.l,12,700.00 from the pe...
Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1169; 1995CriLJ2390; 58(1995)DLT264; 1995(33)DRJ132
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) The petitioner has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the COFEPOSA) by the State Government by an order dated 28.4.1993 of the Deputy Secretary (Home) of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2nd respondent). (2) The incident occurred on 21.12.1992 when the petitioner reported at the Customs departure hall, after clearing from immigration to travel to Hongkong on flight dated 21.12.92. After customs clearance pursuant to his declaration, he was stopped and on personal search, it came to light that he had concealed foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 1,49,462.00 in his rectum. Petitioner could not produce evidence of lawful possession. It is said that he made a statement on 21.12.92 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitting that he was illegally carrying the currency and that he was doing so for Rs. 5,000.00 which he was to receive from one...
Subhash Kumar Bhuwalka Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi370; [1995]83CompCas606(Delhi); 1995(32)DRJ727
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) M/S. Shree Bajrang Jute Mills Ltd., a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') first filed this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short) confirmed by the Appellate Authority both under the Act sanctioning a scheme for its rehabilitation under the provisions of the Act. Under the scheme the sick company has been taken over by the East India Commercial Co. Ltd (EJCC) which is respondent No.5 in this petition. This petition was filed by the sick company through Shri Subhash Kumar Bhuwalka claiming to be the Director thereof. After we had issued notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued and which was limited to the question as to what was the effect of the Operating Agency not itself coming up with the scheme, an application (C.M. No. 8942/94) was filed on behalf of the sick company stating tha...
Vijay Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)23; 1995CriLJ2599; 1995(32)DRJ671
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The appellant Vijay alias Hanuman was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac in default of payment of which to undergo fur- ther R.I. for two years for being in illegal and unauthorised possession of 41 grams of charas. (2) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 8.4.90 at about 8.30 p.m., while A.S.I. Hazari Lal (P.W.3), was on patrol duty along with Constable Kirpal Singh and Kanihya Lal, received a secret information to the effect that one person was selling charas near B-Block, Raghubir Nagar. Acting upon this information, a raiding party was organized. Since public persons refused to join the raiding party, A.S.I. Hazari Lal (P.W.3) accompanied by Constables Kanhiya Lal (P.W.5) and Kirpal Singh (P.W.2) proceeded to B-...
NaIn Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2774; 1995LC44(Delhi)
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The appellant, an inmate of Central Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail, Delhi was convicted for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 27-8-1990, the appellant was found in possession of 450 milligrams of heroin in the Central Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail, Delhi The appellant was searched by the jail warden Kishan Lal (P.W.7) al the behest of Shri B. B. Kaul, Assistant Superintendent Central Jail No. 1. The seizure was effected in the presence of Shri B. B. Kaul and the Jail warden Chand Ram (P. W. 9) and nine small packets containing heroin were recovered from the appellant's possession. The contraband was produced before Shri Darshan Lal Sharma (P.W.2), Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No. 1. The police was called. Sub I...
Abid Ali Khan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ77; 1995LabIC371
D.K. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner, who was enrolled as a Constable in the Border Security Force(for short the B.S.F.) on 23 July 1984, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by respondent No.4, the Commandant 51 Bn, B.S.F., Bhikhiwind, Distt. Amritsar on 17 June 1991, ordering the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and dismissing him from service with immediate effect, with a further direction that the petitioner will not be entitled to draw pay and allowances, except ration money, for the period he was kept in force custody prior to the date of order of sentence. A further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service. There were four charges against the petitioner, for which he was tried by a Petty Security Force Court, found guilty and sentenced...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »