Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 3 of about 169 results (0.021 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kasturi Food and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT271TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 29-2-88 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Briefly started the facts of the case are that the appellants filed a classification list No. 5/86 effective from 1st March, 86 and another No. 6/85-86 effective from 13-3-86 claiming Pharma Yeast as non-excisable. The said classification lists were approved modifying the rate of duty at 12% ad valorem. The Range Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking them to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 8,448/- being the duty on 4,400 kgs. Pharma Yeast cleared during the period from April, 86 to September, 86 should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The assessee paid the duty under protest on 31-10-86 and submitted a representation dated 21-1-87 claiming that Chapter 21 of the Tariff did not cover Yeast put up as medicament. On this ground they prayed that the amount of duty paid by them under pro...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Bangia Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)82; 1995(34)DRJ24; ILR1995Delhi554; 1995LabIC1939; (1996)ILLJ95Del
P.K. Bahir, J. 1. The petitioner has sought writ of certiorari seeking quashment of the impugned order dated October 9, 1993 by which the offer of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been rejected and he had sought mandamus requiring the respondent to voluntary retire the petitioner in pursuance to his letter dated August 16, 1993. 2. The writ is opposed by the respondents, on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were in contemplation at the time the letter of voluntary retirement was received and notice indicating the intention to initiate disciplinary proceedings was issued to the petitioner on August 21, 1993 which was served on the petitioner on August 26, 1993 and thus, in view of Rule 20 of the State respondent was justified in declining the request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement. It is pleaded that within the three months notice period, the request of the petitioner had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that un...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)492; 1995(33)DRJ363; 1995LabIC372
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This writ petition filed by the petitioner seeks expunction of complete confidential reports both by the initiating officer and reviewing officer of 6/86 and 6/88 and 5/89 and also challenges his non selection to the post of Colonel. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under: (2) The petitioner is a serving officer of the Indian Army. He was approved for promotion to the select rank of Lt. Col. by Selection Board No.4 in March,1989. In the year 1990 the petitioner was not detailed on Senior Command Course unlike his batch mates. This indicated that his confidential reports (for short 'CR') after his selection as Lt. Colonel, being Cr 5/89 and Icr 9/89, initiated by his Commanding Officer, Col. D.K.Nundy, with whom he had allegedly strained relations may have been based on his adverse subjective appraisal thereby degrading his profile. As a result of this apprehension, on December 3, 1990 the petitioner filed a non-statutory complaint before the Chi...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Bahal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)60; 58(1995)DLT229
Mohd. Sharnim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present writ petition has challegned the detention Order No. F.5/19/94/H(P-11) dated 13/07/1994 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake ofconvenience) by Lt. Governor of Delhi, and Declaration No. 14/94 dated 16/08/1994 under Section 9 of the said Act issued by Additional Secretary to the Government of India.(2) Brief facts for the proper appreciation of the points involved herein are enumerated as under: that one package bearing the name of the petitioner containing 1470 spectacle frames and 5000 integrated circuits concealed in refrigerator and washing machine, was intercepted by the Preventive Officers of the Air CargoUnit. Yet another consignment landed at the Airport on 24/03/1994 from Singapore bearing the same address and passport number but in the name of a different consignee. A scrutiny of the same resulted ...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)114; 58(1995)DLT679
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is an appeal against conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 2.7.1992. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac failing which he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The incident and alleged recovery is dated 3.6.1990. According to Mr.Sanjiv Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which is 'Ex. PW-2/A', only limited option was given to the appellant before his search. I have perused the notice and it has been mentioned that if the appellant wishes, his search could be taken before a Gazetted Officer. Similarly in the F.I.R. also this fact is reiterated. Mr. Kumar has argued that partial option would tantamount to no option in terms of the mandate of Supreme Court in view of the decision in State of Punjab v.Balbir Singh, 1994 (1) Cri 753. What the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sunil Sabharwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ538; 1995RLR385
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) These three matters arise out of the complaints filed by M.C.D. against same person Sh.Sunil Sabharwal. It would be convenient to dispose of these three matters by this common judgment. (2) Facts leading to the filing of these two criminal appeals and the criminal revision are that on July 23, 1984, at about 10.25 A.M, House No.B-101, Mansarovar Garden, belonging to Sh.Sunil Sabharwal, was inspected by the Junior Engineer (Building) of M.C.D. and it was found that four rooms, kitchen, verandah, toilet and staircase at ground floor and one room, verandah and toilet on the first floor were under construction for which no building plan had been got sanctioned and thus, a complaint under Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was filed on October 19 1984 before the Magistrate concerned. The record shows that the complaint was signed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor of Municipal Corporation on 4th August 1984 and was presented before th...
Tag this Judgment!Sita World Travel (i) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]55ITD357(Delhi)
ORDERPer B. S. Saluja, J. M. - The assessed is in appeal against the order of CWT (A) - XV, New Delhi dated 12-11-1990 on various grounds.2. Ground Nos. 1 is general in nature and needs no comments.3. Ground No. 2, 5 and 6 were not pressed by the learned counsel Shri R. Ganeshan and hence the same are rejected.4. Ground No. 3 relates to inclusion of an amount of Rs. 16,37,000 pertaining to tourist/taxi cars in the net wealth of the assessed for levying Wealth-tax.4.1 The brief facts in this case are that the assessed filed the return of wealth on 28-6-1985 declaring net wealth of Rs. 25,74,000. The said return was later on revised declaring wealth at Rs. 9,37,000. The WTO issued notice under section 16(2) and fixed the hearing for 16-2-1990. However, none attended. The WTO, thereforee, computed the wealth at Rs. 33,73,640 as per last year.4.2 On appeal before the CWT (A), the learned counsel for the assessed submitted that the value of cars should not be included in the assets and that...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT293TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.However, Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Advocate having the prior intimation of today's hearing has moved an application for adjournment stating as follows :- "That the undersigned regrets her inability to cause appearance before the Hon'ble Bench on account of her being out of town." 2. Considered. Admittedly the Ld. counsel was having the prior intimation of the date of hearing for today. Why she would be out of town has also not been stated. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal for default of appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....
Tag this Judgment!Sail Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT252TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of duty demand of Rs. 1,51,07,377.00 and personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakh imposed on the applicants herein by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur in his order dated 31-10-1991.2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Counsel arguing for the applicants submitted that the demand arises as a differential duty, according to the Department, which is payable under Heading 84.54 on ingot moulds and the differential duty is calculated taking into account the duty already paid by the applicants, herein, on clearance of the goods as scrap under Heading 72.03. The ld. Counsel submitted that the ingot moulds manufactured by them are used in their factory. Over a period of time, these ingot moulds become scrap as part of it also and get melted during the process of manufacture of ingots. The applicants, herein, melted most of the ingot moulds which have become unusable and some quantity was also cleared as scrap. For demanding of duty as scrap, the Department'...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hari Fertilizer
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT565TriDel
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether the ammonium chloride manufactured by the respondent in this appeal is entitled for exemption under Notification 66/71, dated 29-5-1971. The respondent had filed a classification list dated 24-9-1980. There were three items in this list. The first described as muriate of ammonia commercial grade and the second ammonium chloride (technical) were classified by the respondent tinder item 68 of the prevailing Central Excise Tariff. In the remarks column, the respondent stated "these goods are neither cleared by us as fertilizer nor manufactured and sold as fertilizer." There was another entry in the classification list for ammonium chloride fertilizer which the respondent classified under item 14HH.Subsequently the respondent claimed refund of the duty paid on ammonia used for the manufacture of the first two products under Notification 66/71. This exempts the ammonia entirely from duty if used in the manufacture of fertilizer falling un...
Tag this Judgment!