Delhi Court April 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 2 of about 100 results (0.019 seconds)Vidya Ply and Board Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC294Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Vidya Ply and Board Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order in appeal No. 2 CE/Appl/KNP/90 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad rejecting their appeal and confirming the order in original No. 19 AC (S) Demand/1989 passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Sitapur. By the said order, the Assistant Collector had directed them to reverse the credit taken by them on inputs lying as such or contained in the material under process or contained in the final product lying in stock on 31-3-1989. This was done on the ground that they had opted out of the Modvat Scheme and started availing of full exemption from duty on the final products cleared by them from 1-4-1989. Rule 57-C was pressed into service for such a finding. It was noted that the said Rule makes dutiability of the final product mandatory for availment of Modvat. It was, therefore held that to the extent the final product was to be cleared at nil rate of duty by opting to switch over to exem...
Tag this Judgment!Parry'S Confectionery Ltd. Vs. Collector Of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT623TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-5-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Trichy. The appellants were licenced for the manufacture of confectionery under Tariff Item 1A and boiled sweets under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Chocolate Eclairs were being cleared by the appellants under Tariff Item 68. After the issue of Tariff Advice No. 114/81, dated 13-10-1981 stating that Chocolate Eclairs containing more than 3.5% chocolate would merit classification under Tariff Item 1A (Confectionery) and on the basis of the findings of the Revenue Audit the appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 17-12-1985 alleging that Chocolate Eclairs manufactured by them containing more than 3.5% chocolate was classifiable under Tariff Item 1A. It was stated that the appellants had been suppressing facts regarding the correct percentage of chocolate in Chocolate Eclairs which according to the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Chief Chemist had chocola...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Chauhan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)429; 1995(33)DRJ604; 1995RLR548
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) MR.J.S.CHAUHAN has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Delhi, Commissioner of Police and S.H.O. of Police Station Vasant Vihar for production of his son Sanjeev. It was averred in the petition that the petitioner is the owner of a two-wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DEO 4506 and his son, on 4th January 1995, had been asked to get that scooter repaired from a mechanic and since that date, his son had become untraceable and a written complaint was also made to the S.H.O. of Police Station defense Colony on 7th January 1995 in this respect.(2) It is further disclosed in the petition that on 11th January 1995, a telephone call came to him informing him that his scooter was lying in the Vasant Vihar Police Station and on the following day, he visited the said Police Station but one Mr.Kamal Dev refused to release the scooter and also...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)541; 1995(33)DRJ397
D.K. Jain, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 29 February 1989 passed by respondent No.3 viz., the Commandant 33 Bn, Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF), in exercise of powers con- ferred by Section 12(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short the Act), dismissing the petitioner from service as he was not considered fit to be retained as a member of the Force for having been: (i) convicted for committing offences under Section 10(a) and (n) of the Act and sentenced to undergo seven days simple imprisonment from 21 February 1989 to 27 February 1989 by the Assistant Commandant of the same Battalion acting as Magistrate 1st Class - respondent No.2 herein, (ii) awarded ten days confinement to lines from 26 February 1988 to 6 March 1988 and forfeiture of his pay and allowances under Section 11(3) of the Act, for consuming liquor and leaving the camp without permission and misb...
Tag this Judgment!itc Bhadrachalam Paper Board Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT166TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of a demand since quantified for Rs. 62,62,580/- in respect of fluorescent paper and paper board manufactured by the applicants herein. Since the appeal itself lies in a short compass and needs to be remanded for compliance with the principles of natural justice, we, on hearing both the parties granted stay and with the consent of the parties take up appeal itself for disposal.2. The facts briefly are that the appellants were clearing fluorescent paper and paper board coated with china clay and other inorganic substances under Heading 4810.10 and 4810.90 w.e.f. 1-4-1989 on the basis of an approved classification by the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants by a show cause notice dated 4-5-1992 for changing the classification of the goods to 4811.90 of the CETA, 1985. Learned Consultant, Shri C.Chidambaram appearing for the appellants referred to the respective Headings 48.10 and 48.11 CETA which read ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Steels Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT492TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur confiscating 13.860 MTs of M.S. Ingots but giving the appellant an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 40,000/-; confirming the demand for duty of Rs. 2,44 lakhs approximately and imposing the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant. I have heard Ms. Archna Wadhwa, Advocate for the appellant and Shri K.K. Dutta, JDR for the deptt.2. The action of the Collector was based on two counts. One was that 13.680 MTs. of M.S. Ingots was not recorded in the RG 1 Register.Against this the appellant has not filed an appeal. The finding of the Collector on the second count, was that the appellant manufactured and cleared without payment of duty 387.910 M.T. Ingots during the period from November 1990 to March, 1991. The basis for this allegation is the "heat record" recovered from the assessee's unit. This record relates to the heating of the furnace for manufacturing ingots. The Collector has gone by the s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prateek Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]215ITR272(Delhi)
Acts/Rules/Orders:Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(1), 256(2) and 263JUDGMNETDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 has been preferred by the Revenue seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer to this court for its opinion the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act on the ground that even if it is assumed that the subscribers to the share capital were not genuine, then under no circumstances, the amount of share capital could be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessed ?' 2. The assessed is a public limited company which was incorporated on June 4, 1983. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, it float...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Dien Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ28
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The objector seeks to get the Award set aside and it was on account of its objections that following issues were framed : 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for any of the reasons mentioned by the petitioner ? 2.Relief. (2) The learned counsel for the objector submits that the Arbitrator has gone wrong inasmuch as he did not consider that the plant erected by the claimants suffered from number of defects and this final inspection was never done. He has further submitted that the claimant had greed to supply more equipment which was never done and that this fact was also not taken into consideration by the Arbitrator. The last contention is that the plant was never commissioned and that consequently no commissioning charges could be allowed. (3) As would be borne out from the Award itself all these points have been taken into consideration by the Arbitrator. As per the Arbitrator there had been too much delay on the part of the consignee in doing his par...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Rajput Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ91
S.D. Pandit, J.(1) The short Question involved in this petition is as to whether the respondent wa.s justified in following the sealed cover procedure when the Dpc had considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director on February I, 1991. It is not disputed before us that on February 1, 1991 neither any departmental proceedings had been initialed against the petitioner by issuing any imputations or allegations or charge sheet nor any challan in the criminal case in Fir No.703/89 had been filed against the petitioner although it is the case of the respondent that petitioner is involved in a criminal case pertaining to Fir No.703/89. The law on this point is very clear as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs . Jankiraman etc. : (1991)IILLJ570SC where it has been held that while considering the case of promotion the procedure of scaled cover can he followed only in chan case where the employed is either facing disciplinary pro...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Bhandari Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)377; 1995(34)DRJ630; 1995LabIC2419
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The writ petitioner was employed as Press Relations Officer at the Central Office of the Reserve Bank of India in Bombay, a very sensitive post which involves the appreciation of the financing and monetary policies of the Government of India through the Reserve Bank of India. thereforee, the functioning of a Press Relation Officer would be very important and a person has to maintain a congenial atmosphere not only amongst the superior officers and himself, but also between the Reserve Bank of India and the Press and the general public. He joined service as Press Relations Officer on March 1, 1985. Right from the beginning, it would appear that he has not been acting and functioning as it was expected of him. Within six years from the date of the joining the office on October 31, 1991 exercising the power under the Regulation 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service w.e.f. the close of busin...
Tag this Judgment!