Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 16 of about 169 results (0.013 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sahyadri Ssk Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT380TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 10-10-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The dispute relates to method of calculation of average production of sugar for the purpose of grant of the Central Excise duty concession in terms of exemption Notification No.l35/83-CE, dated 30-4-1983. The relevant notification is reproduced as under : - 3. Respondents have filed a refund claim for rebate of Rs. 12,99,218.84 for the excess production of sugar produced during the period from 1-5-1983 to 30-9-1983 as per Notification No. 135/83, dated 30-4-1983.The Assistant Collector restricted the rebate claim to Rs. 6,06,948.60 on the ground that required average for determining the excess production eligible for rebate under the said Notification should have been based on only one year inasmuch as they had produced sugar during the corresponding period of only one out of the three preceding sugar years i.e., 1978-79 and not on the...
Tag this Judgment!Janak Singh Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT191TriDel
1. A Reference Application has been filed by Shri Janak Singh for referring to the High Court the following as a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order No. A/2093-1094/93-NRB; dated 27-12-1993 :- "Dismissal of the appeal in default is not covered by Section 129(B) of Customs Act, 1962 in as much as :- (a) The ingredients of Section 129(B) of Customs Act, 1962 are applicable only to confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against etc. etc. The adoption to these ingredients postulate consideration to the facts of the case only and then the application of any of these ingredients of Section 129(B) of Customs Act, 1962 which in the opinion of Appellate Authority are applicable, according to the facts of the case/Appeal. Application of any one of these ingredients also envisages circumscribing of the appellate authority within the frame work of facts and orders passed by the Authority whose order is appealed against. Section 129(B) of Customs Act, 1962 under whic...
Tag this Judgment!Avis International Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)599
ORDERT. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, PRESIDENT :This is a stay application filed by the assessed relating to asst. yr. 1989-90, ultimately seeking stay of demand of Rs. 16,84,563. The assessed prays to stay the above demand till the disposal of the second appeal by this Tribunal. In the second appeal, which is pending before this Tribunal, relief under s. 80HHC is the bone of contention.2. The assessed is a company having its office at 8/32, Kriti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi. For asst. yr. 1989-90 for which the previous year was 31st March, 1989, it had filed a return of loss of Rs. 57,76,680 on 29th Dec., 1989. DDB I/L, CCS were claimed as exempt on the ground that they are capital receipts. The assessment was first completed under s. 143(1)(a) on 29th March, 1990, wherein the loss of Rs. 56,53,234 was accepted. In the said assessment, the computation as relating to CCS, etc. was also accepted. However, the learned Dy. CIT had issued a notice under s. 154/155 on 9th Oct., 1991, wherein he ...
Tag this Judgment!Rock Stone Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT341TriDel
1. This stay application arises out of Order-in-Appeal No.112/CE/Appl/JPR/94 dt. 20-7-1994. The appellants are a small scale unit engaged in the manufacture of Synthetic Organic Dyes falling in Chapter 32 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants use Anthranilic Acid as an input in the manufacture of these products. Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 13,925/- was disallowed because certain gate passes in regard to Aanthranilic Acid which is classifiable under Chapter Heading 2922.00 showed to have been classified under Heading 2942.00.2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that when the appellants started purchasing these chemicals it was discovered that they were receiving gate passes for these items under Heading 2942.00 as well as under 2916.00. The declaration therefore mentions Headings 2942.00 and 2916.00. Subsequently they discovered that a manufacturer, M/s. Span Chemicals, in the jurisdiction of Surat Collectorate was classifying this product un...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Lamba Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)1313; 1995(33)DRJ58
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition for setting aside the order dated 30.9.1985 and for quashing charge dated 16.10.85 framed under Sec. 120B Indian Penal Code read with Sec.420 Indian Penal Code passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. (2) MR.MATHUR, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the outset has contended that R.C.34/83 Dli on the basis of which Fir was filed was under Sec.120B Indian Penal Code read with Sec.5(2) read with Sec.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) and no investigation was conducted by the respondent under Sec. 420 Indian Penal Code Mr.Mathur has contended that if the Fir was under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act the forum for such trial is before a Special Judge appointed under the Act and prosecution cannot camouflage by choosing not to file and pursue the complaint under the provisions of the Act and file the same under Sec. 420 Indian Penal Code In support of his arguments he has cited B...
Tag this Judgment!Eider Electronics Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT29
C.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, Civil Writ Nos. 3774/92 and 924/93 filed by the petitioner Companies impugning their non-selection by rejection of tender which they had submitted for the grant of license for providing Radio Paging Services for 27 selected cities in India. The companies, which were short-listed, are respondents 6 to 24. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the list of such Companies.2. The Department of Tele-communications, Government of India, invited tenders from Indian companies for providing Radio Paging Services for 27 selected cities in the country, with a view to license the operation of such venture. The tender notice is filed as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. It was so provided in the said notice that the intending tendered shall obtain copy of the tender documents containing conditions along with relevant specifications from the office of the respondents at Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. The documents could be obt...
Tag this Judgment!Alpha Garments Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT600TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original, dated 9-8-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Leather Garments' falling under Chapter Heading 4201.90. It was charged that they have manufactured 'Leather Garments' without obtaining Central Excise Licence and cleared the goods from the place of manufacture without issuing gate passes, without maintaining proper Central Excise records and without payment of Central Excise duty. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued. In reply to the show cause notice they have accepted the factual position that they have manufactured the goods without payment of duty but defended their action on the plea that the manufactured goods have all been exported which could be cleared for export without payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 13 or on payment of duty under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which duty was refundable to them. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. I.S. Rekhi and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(2)ARBLR35(Delhi); 1995(33)DRJ401
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA) has sought for appointment of an arbitrator for its counter claims. According to the D.D.A. these disputes arose out of the same cause of action/facts on which basis claims of the respondent were referred to the arbitration. (2) The facts of the case are that when the dispute arose between the respondent here with the D.D.A., he sought for referring his disputes to arbitration and accordingly filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Vide the order of this Court dated 8th August,1988, those disputes as mentioned in the petition were directed to be referred to an arbitrator within eight weeks. Since the D, failed to appoint an arbitrator within eight weeks, hence this Court vide order dated 27th April,1989 appointed Shri J.D.Goel as the sole arbitator. By the present petition, the D.D.A. wants its counter claim to be referred to an arbitrator. (3) This petition has been contested by the respondent inter al...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Manjit Properties (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1339; AIR1995Delhi355; I(1996)BC233; 58(1995)DLT49; 1995(33)DRJ46
ORDERXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 'Any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such condition as the Court thinks reasonable: Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order shall not be made authorising the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit. Rule 1 Chapter xviii, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 1.Proof of facts by affidavits - The Court may at any time for sufficient reasons, order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable: Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party bonafide desires that production of a witness for cross-examination and t...
Tag this Judgment!Victor Cables Industries Ltd. Vs. Engineering Projects (i) Ltd. and an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)43; 58(1995)DLT464
Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S. Victor Cable Industries Ltd. submitted the tender document, with the respondent M/s. Engineering Projects (1) Ltd. (in short EPI). It was in response to the notice inviting tender issued by respondent Epi for the supply of cables in respect of Rayalseems Thermal Power Project of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. On account of the deemed export status of the project exemption from payment of excise duty was available to respondent EPI.This was so reflected in the purchase conditions appended to the tender enquiry.The sales tax was to be paid extra at actuals as applicable against the documentaryevidence. The petitioner's tender was accepted on 30/03/1993. The order for supplying power cable at a total value of Rs. 77,04,210.65 paise was placed on the petitioner. Along with the order, terms and conditions of payment were annexed.Delivery was to be made within a period of four to five months. This order was to be followed by a detailed order to be released...
Tag this Judgment!