Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 14 of about 169 results (0.017 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Meltex, Malsters Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT489TriDel
1. The appeal is by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. In her order, the Collector (Appeals) over-ruled the finding of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala, that the respondent had not paid duty under protest for the period from 20-11-1980, and held that the duty had been paid under protest from this date to 25-7-1982.She directed sanction of the claim if otherwise admissable.2. Shri B.D. Bhagat J.D.R. adopts the reasoning in the appeal, and says that, since the gate passes and other relevant documents had not been endorsed "Duty paid under protest", the provisions of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules 19421 have not been complied with. The duty has therefore not been paid under protest. The protest letter was only delivered on 24-10-1981.4. The essential ingredient of the protest procedure described in Rule 233B is that the assessee must file a letter signifying his intention to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Development Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT58TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Hindustan Development Corporation Limited against orders dated 21-6-1989 and 15-6-1989 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-1 Collectorate holding that they were liable to pay duty on the goods manufactured by them namely, Railway Points and Crossing after including in the assessable value the inspection charges paid by their customers, Railways to M/s. Rail India Technical and Economic Service Limited (RITES). As the appellants had not included such inspection charges in the assessable value of their products and had not disclosed the same in their Price Lists and suppressed the fact that inspection charges would be paid by the Railway Board, the extended period under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held to be correctly applicable. Accordingly duty demands of Rs. 1,07,277.56 and Rs. 1,37,599.03 were confirmed by him in the two adjudication orders. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common and...
Tag this Judgment!Modison Contacts (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT567TriDel
1. The issue in this appeal is the classification of goods imported by the appellant, described as thin rubber abrasive cutting of wheels. The Collector of Customs (Appeal), Bombay, has confirmed the classification decided by the lower authority of sub-heading 6801.10 of the Central Excise Tariff for levy of additional duty of Customs. The appellant claims classification of these goods under sub-heading 6801.90.2. The appellant has requested a decision on the basis of the written submissions contained in its appeal, which are reiterated in its letter of 14th January, 1995. We have considered these, as also the arguments advanced by Shri Mohan Lal, the departmental representative, in support of the classification decided.3. It is the appellant's argument that the goods are intended to be used only for cutting hard materials, without surface cracking, within a fine tolerance. Cutting is a different action from grinding, and the cutting wheels cannot be used for grinding. Sub-heading 680...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd. (and Vice Versa ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]215ITR522(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma J.1. As the two applications filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue and the assessee, respectively, arise out of the same assessment year, namely, 1983-84, and also from the same facts, we propose to dispose of the two applications by this common judgment and other. 2. Both the applications relate to the assessment year 1983-84. 3. In the application filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the following questions said to be questions of law are sought to be referred to this court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the liability of Rs. 10,94,326 on account of surcharge on the electricity consumed was a statutory liability and was an allowable deduction even though it was disputed ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had any material to hold that the monthly bills which included the disputed cha...
Tag this Judgment!Ess Kay Kohli Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1337; 58(1995)DLT141; 1995(33)DRJ83
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petition is under sections 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner seeks the removal of Mr.B.K.Sharma who was appointed on August 10, 1992 as the sole Arbitrator by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, arrayed as respondent No.1. The petition seems to be full of allegations against the conduct of the sole Arbitrator. However, during arguments his removal was sought only on the ground that the disputes being of technical nature requiring engineering skill and the sole Arbitrator being not so qualified, he ought to be removed. In support my attention was drawn to a judgment of a learned single judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court reported as Mohinder Singh & Co. v. Union of India Air 1972 J&K; 63. (2) In Mohinder Singh's case (supra) also the dispute related to matters technical in nature which could be solved and understood by qualified engineers. The Arbitrator was not an engineer. The learned single judge relying upon two judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Kapoor Brothers Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT12
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) M/S. Kapoor Bros, are not satisfied with the award made and consequently have filed the objections.(2) The learned Counsel for the objectors has sought the setting aside of the award on three grounds. The first objection is that the award displays non-application of mind and interpolations have been made unauthorisedly. The second objection is that the Award was actually made and published on October 10, 1984 but has been pre-dated showing the date of publication as september 26,1984. Lastly, the Arbitrators had received evidence at the back of the objector.(3) As regards the first objection, my attention has been drawn to the Award and more particularly to Contractor's Claim No. 1 and Contractor's Claim No. 4. It is argued that as under Contractor's Claim No. 1 the Award is 'Nil', thereforee, under Contractor's Claim No. 4 the Railways could not be directed to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the Awarded amount. In other words, the contention is that since no amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Lal Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1329; 1995(32)DRJ756
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This order will dispose of three writ petitions seeking writs in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings against the petitioners pending before the trial Magistrates under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short the 'Act').(2) It will be sufficient to state the facts of one of the petitions as identical points are involved in these writ petitions. Accordingly the facts of writ petition No. 4554 of 1994 are being given below:-(3) On February 20, 1990 the petitioner is alleged to have sold a sample of Cottage Cheese (Paneer) to Food Inspector Shri Arun Kumar when he visited Shiv Paneer Bhandar situate on Main Road, GE-1 Block Opposite KG-1/376 Vikaspuri,New Delhi. The sample on analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, was found to contain Moisture and Milk Fat as per details below: Moisture 56.3% Milk Fat 44.42% on dry weight basis.(4) According to the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory the sample of Pa...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Krishna Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ564; [1995(71)FLR480]; 1995LabIC1521; (1996)ILLJ562Del
S.D. Pandit, J.(1) We have heard learned counsel for both the sides at length and we propose to dispose of this writ petition at this stage. (2) The present petition is filed by Shri N.S. Krishna, who had joined as an Accountant on 10.7.1974 in the establishment of respondent No.1, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. He worked with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited till 2.7.1976 and with the consent of his employer, viz. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited he joined respondent No.2, State Trading Corporation of India Limited, after 2.7.1976. The provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 are made applicable to respondent No.1, M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and a Scheme under the said Act was introduced in M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited when the petitioner was working there. (3) The petitioner had sought voluntary retirement when he was serving with respondent No.2 on 2.7.1991. According to him the respondent No.1 had not transferred the amount payable by respondent No.1 under the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajni Anand Vs. the Executive Committee, Delhi High Court Bar Associat ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1404; 58(1995)DLT323
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff, who is a practicing Advocate of this Court, on 13.9.1994 filed a suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that she is entitled to a rightful utilisation of Chamber No. 145, Delhi High Court Building, New Delhi. In addition a decree for injunction is also claimed restraining the Delhi High Court Bar Association or the Members of its Executive Committee from dispossessing her and also restraining the Association from withdrawing the facilities provided to her by the Bar and from cancelling her membership. Further decree for injunction claimed by the plaintiff against the Chairman of the Chamber Allotment Committee is to forebear from allotting Chambers to members of Delhi High Court Bar Association on the basis of the existing rules. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 claiming interim relief. On 14.9.1994 ex parte order of injunction was granted directing that the plaintiff be not ejected or f...
Tag this Judgment!Fedders Lloyd Corp. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(59)LC203(Delhi)
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present writ petition has impugned the show cause notice dated March 27, 1992, (Annexure P-1), issued by respondent No. 1 Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of a wide range of air-conditioners. The consignment in dispute related to 18 pieces of Micro Processor Controllers. The said goods were cleared after assessment vide Bill of Entry No. 264552 dated November 15, 1989. The show cause notice, however, states that the goods, which were imported, related to 22 pieces although it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the import only related to 18 pieces. There is no dispute to the fact that the said goods were cleared on November 15, 1989. Respondent No. 1 issued show cause notice dated March 27, 1992, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, (thereinafter referred to as the Act). Paragraph 8 of the said notice may be reproduced as follows:In the circumstances M/s Fedders...
Tag this Judgment!