Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 10 of about 169 results (0.020 seconds)Lippy Trading Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT287TriDel
1 After hearing both sides in regard to the stay petition filed by the applicants, M/s. Lippy Trading Corporation, Agra, we are not satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out by the applicants. Shri J.S.Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relied upon the earlier decision in the appeal filed by them before the Collector (Appeals) where he contended the appellate authority had considered all the aspects involved in the present case also and held in their favour as far as the purchase of a Buffing Machine is concerned. The Department has relied upon the fact that this machine had been used by them in the manufacture of footwear and accordingly they are not eligible for the benefit of exemption for the manufacture of footwear without the use of power. Shri Agarwal contended that when a finding by the Collector (Appeals) was in their favour on the question of use or non-use of power in the manufacture of footwear by them, the Collector could not have instituted sub...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Kwality Laminators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT232TriDel
1. When the matter was called, none was present for the respondents.The notice to the respondents has been duly served by the jurisdictional Collector for which the photo copy of receipt is on record. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, ld. SDR on the application for condonation of delay of one day and also note that the supplementary appeals had been filed to satisfy the procedural requirement since the main appeal had been filed in time. We are inclined to agree with the plea made before us by the ld. S.D.R. for condoning the delay, which is only of one day. Delay in filing the supplementary appeals is also consequently condoned since we find that the main appeal has been filed in time. The appeals are, therefore, taken up for hearing on merits.2. Taking up the appeals, we find that the issue involved, herein, is the classification of engine bearings imported by the respondents, herein, for the purpose of additional duty of Customs (CVD). The respondents have claimed refund on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2594
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. Abdul Hamid son of Abdul Wahid resident of 44/93, Lambi Gali, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, stands convicted of an offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 56/87 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for three months. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26-1-1987 PW 1 Zamir Ahmed was playing gulli-danda with PW 11 Bobby son of Pyare Lal in Lambi Gali, Hauz Qazi. At the time they were so playing the appellant came there along with one boy and he assaulted both PW. 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 11 Bobby. Thereupon, Zamir Ahmed ran towards his house and on the way he met his uncle Hafeez Ahmed and Zafar Ahmed. He told them about the appellant having assaulted him. The appellant had also reached there and he assaulted PW 1 Zamir Ahmed in the presence of his uncles. At that time deceased Hafeez Ahmed had abused and scolded the appellant. Thereupon th...
Tag this Judgment!Gogo Rani Vs. Rajinder Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT204; 1995RLR350
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Along with a petition moved in October 1992 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, there was an interim application bearingNo-13757 of 1992 on which an ex parte order was passed on 21/01/1993. The order was as under:205'IA 13757/92Notice to respondent No.1 for 6.5.1993. Meanwhile, the said respondent is restrained from interfering in any manner with the exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing No. Wz 8-A, Kirti Nagar, NewDelhi. Petitioner to comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3, C.P.C.within a week. dusty.'(2) Consequent upon service of the order so passed, the respondent moved an application for its vacation. It is that application (IA 2948/93) which has led to thisorder.(3) Before I come into grip with the arguments advanced, a brief commentary on the backdrop may be needed. Here it is.(4) The history of this acrimony has its roots in the business partnership entered into between the parties on 30/05/1986. The union, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jinender Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT561
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of learned M.M. dismissing his complaint on 21.1.93. Mr. Sud has argued that complainant filed the complaint dated 8.1.93 on 20.1.95. He has also contended that the petitioner has alleged in his complaint that on 22.12.93 at about 8.30. p.m. the respondent waived and called the complainant in filthy language and threatened the complainant with dire consequences in the event the complainant did anything against the said Shri Jai Kishan Aggarwal. The exact word used by the respondent are as follows: 'BEHENCHOD Agar Tu Agarwal Ko Tang Kiya To Main Teri Ma Chod Doonga Or Tujhe Uthwa Kar Va Tere Bar Ko Under Karva DOONGA.' (2) Mr. Sud has contended that on these allegations the evidence under Sections 503,504, 505 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were made out. Mr. Sud has also contended that the learned M.M. by his impugned order dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Sukh Dev Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ306
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This writ petition filed by the petitioner is directed against the order passed by the respondent No.3 on 14.9.1993 by which the petitioner was directed to vacate quarter No.3 of the Bal Bhawan Staff Quarters, which was being occupied by him illegally since April 1994 and which he had not vacated inspire of repeated notices thereforee. (2) The petitioner was appointed as a peon by the respondents in the office of the Bal Bhawan Society with effect from 1.10.1980 and thereafter he was confirmed in the said post of Peon in the year 1982. It may be stated herein that the father of the petitioner was also working with the respondents and he was allotted the said staff quarter No.3, Type I, by the respondents which is located within the compound of the Bal Bhawan Society. It is stated that the petitioner and is father have been living in the same premises/ residential quarter because of which the petitioner was also denied the house rent allowance as he was using the acco...
Tag this Judgment!Kulbir Singh Vs. Yashbir
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT179
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This is an application moved by the plaintiff for directions that the keys of the premises as well as actual possession of the property be handed over to the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit claiming a decree for specific performance directing defendant No. 1 to execute and get registered sale deed in his favor or in favor of his nominee with respect to property bearing No. 3/31, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Defendant No. 2 in the suit is Allahabad Bank and a direction is sought against defendant No. 2 to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 on 14.12.1989 entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property in plaintiff's favor for a total consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid to defendant No. 1 by way of bank draft dated 12.12.1989 and the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid by way of another bank draft. As per the terms of the agreement, defendant No. 1 delivered to th...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdambay Engg. and Welding Works Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT895TriDel
1. This appeal arises against the order-in-original No. 7/CE/87, dated 10-6-1987. By this order, the ld. Collector has ordered, confiscation of 23130 PCS. of M.C.I. Inserts valued at Rs. 3,64,297.50 under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, he has granted an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/-besides the ld.Collector has confirmed duty of Rs. 46,326.37 (including differential duty on Motor Vehicle Parts) under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the clearance of nuts, bolts and screws, Motor Vehicle parts and MCIT Inserts effected by the party during the period from 1-3-1986 to 4-12-1986. The appellants have also been imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants were issued with a show-cause notice dated 2-1-1987 alleging contravention of the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53 and various rules under Rule 173, 174 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as it was alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Jay Frozen Foods (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT495TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the Department against the order dated 28-6-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents imported a 'Gaulin-3 Plunger High Process Homogenizer' complete with emulsion quality analyser against Bill of Entry No. 5244C, dated 21-10-1983. The goods were assessed under Item 84.17(2) of CTA, 1975. After clearing the goods the respondents filed a claim for refund of duty on the grounds that the imported Homogenizer was correctly classifiable under Item 84.26 of CTA, 1975. After examining the manufacturer's literature, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim for re-assessment under Item 84.26 of CTA, 1975 on the grounds that the imported Homogenizer was for both food & dairy processing and was not designed for use exclusively in dairy processing. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the applicants preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who while re...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Orient Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC85Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 917/Cal/84, dated 6-7-1984 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta whereby the latter had allowed the appeal filed before him by M/s. Orient Steel Industries Ltd. who are respondents herein holding that Steel shots manufactured by them by throwing molten metal into water are steel castings. Grits which are obtained by breaking shots are also castings. He accordingly held them to be classifiable under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 68 ibid as in force at the relevant time.2. In the appeal, it has been contended by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Collectorate that the finding of the Collector (Appeals) is not correct because mere throwing of molten metal into water does not satisfy the definition of castings. The definition of the term "casting" as defined in the Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology 1971 has been referred to by ...
Tag this Judgment!