Delhi Court April 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
ideal Printers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT550TriDel
1. These two appeals arise out of common order-in-appeal dated 24-2-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.The appellants, herein, manufacture printed cartons. The assessee was paying duty of excise on such cartons under Tariff Item 68 of C.E.T.since 18-6-1977. The appellants disputed the classification of their product and started paying duty of excise under protest from 7-1-1978.They also filed revised classification list claiming exemption from the whole of duty of excise on printed cartons under Notification No.122/75, dated 5-5-1975 (which amended Notification 55/75, datded 1-3-1975) treating the printed cartons as product of printing industry.The classification list was accordingly approved. Therefore, the licencee preferred a refund claim requesting refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,27,708.22P paid on printed cartons from 18-6-1977 to 31-12-1978. The refund claim was sanctioned on 31-1-1979 and was paid by cheque dated 31-1-1979.2. On reconsider...
Prem Prakash Alias Prem Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3360
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31-8-1976 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Delhi whereby the appellants were convicted under section 307/34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each together with a fine of Rs. 200/- each or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four months. These appeals shall be disposed off by the common judgment. 2. The incident giving rise to the present appeals took place on 7-9-75. It appears that the complaint Anil Kumar (P.W. 5) and the appellants were in love with Ms. Uttam (P.W. 6). Since Ms. Uttam (P.W. 6) used to remain in the company of Anil Kumar (P.W. 5), the appellant felt ill about it. According to the prosecution, on 7-9-75 at about 8 p.m., while Anil Kumar (P.W. 5) and Ms. Uttam (P.W. 6) were proceeding towards Dina Ka Talab, the appellants came from behind. Appellants Amir Chand and Prem Prakash secured Anil Kumar and dragged him in a nearby lane...
Pritam Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ7
1. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18-12-1976 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 46/76, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 326, I.P.C. has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9-11-1975 at about 4 p.m. some row took place between the complainant and Rakesh (P.W. 2) and the appellant regarding purchase of liquor during the course of which the appellant caused an injury on the abdomen of Rakesh (P.W. 2) by a blade of scissor. The occurrence was witnessed by Tejpal (P.W. 3). Rakesh (P.W. 2) was removed to the hospital where he was medically examined by Dr. O. P. Sharma (P.W. 6). On the same day, a case under Section 307, I.P.C. was registered against the appellant. The appellant was arrested. During investigation, the appellant made a statement (Ex. P.W. 3/B) leading to the discovery of the scissor as a result whereof the Scissor (Ex. P. 1) was...
Yunus Alias Bhaiya and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3205
S.D. Pandit, J.1. The original accused in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1989 have preferred the present appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellants are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for six months. 2. This appeal was originally preferred by both the appellants through Mr. D. R. Sethi, Advocate. The said learned advocate has expired after this appeal was admitted. thereforee, when appeal became ready for hearing production warrants were issued for producing both the appellants. Report was received that appellant No. 1 Yunus alias Bhaiya son of Gulab Massi, who was granted interim bail has since absconded. It was revealed that the proceedings against the surety were also taken and surety bond had been forfeited and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Uttam Singh and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR331(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act has been preferred by the Revenue, relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer to this court six questions stated to be questions of law for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in : 1. holding that the addition of the value of undisclosed stock-in-trade of Rs. 5,57,000 as also the addition of Rs. 13,000 as unaccounted sales were not justified 2. holding that the relevance of stock statement as on December 31, 1984, seized during the course of search as on December 23, 1985, 'dies automatically' because the bank concerned had not provided the assessed any overdraft facility based on that stock statement 3. ignoring the essential matter on record relating to the relevant closing date of the accounting year by basing its conclusions...
Western Transformer and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT512TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Western Transformer & Equipment (P) Limited against order-in-original No. 28/90, dated 8th May, 1990 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur ordering confiscation of 115 Transformers manufactured by them which had not been entered by them in their statutory stock account, giving them the option to redeem them on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. In addition penalty of Rs. 50,000/-had also been imposed on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules for contravention of Rule 173G of Central Excise Rules.2. The appellants were represented by Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate during the hearing of the appeal. He referred to the contentions raised in the appeal and the subsequent written submissions given by them. He emphasised the point that the transformers in question were in the factory premises only and there was no attempt by them to remove them from the factory without payment...
Space Age Engg. Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC473Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals involve a common issue and arise out of two orders Sri. No. 44/CEX/1987 and Srl. No. 45/CEX/1987, dated 8-7-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The facts in brief are that appellants herein [are] manufacturing Conveyors, Stackers/Reclaimers and parts thereof. They filed a classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1986 claiming classification as follows :-(1) Conveyors 8428.00 15% Ad valorem(2) Stackers/Reclaimers 8428.00 15% Ad valorem(3) Lifts 8428.00 15% Ad valorem(4) Cranes 8426.00 15% Ad valorem(5) Parts suitable for use 8431.00 20% Ad valorem solely or principally The component parts namely idlers, pulleys and structurals are manufactured in the factory of the assessee and certain other bought out items like electric motors, gear box, belting switches, coupling etc. are assembled at the site of the customers to form conveyors, stackers/reclaimers. The Department found that the appellants have paid duty on the items manufactured in their factory namely ...
South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC479Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore confirming the duty demand of Rs. 3,24,91,945.43 P.on Calcium-bi-Sulphite Solution prepared and captively consumed by the appellants in the course of manufacture of wood pulp during the period 1-3-1986 to 31-1-1990 and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants. The entire demand for duty is with reference to the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which has been invoked on the ground that the appellants had suppressed the correct quantity of manufacture of the said item.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of wood pulp, man-made staple fibre, man-made filament yarn and Sulphuric Acid. With the introduction of the amendment to the Central Excise Tariff w.e.f. 1-3-1986, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise wrote to the appellants on 18-7-1986, calling upon t...
Susumo Engineering Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT617TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 34/1993, dated 27-9-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur.2. It was charged that appellants have manufactur and cleared 'Dumpers' falling under sub-heading No. 8704.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 without holding a Central Excise Licence and without payment of duty. The origin for booking the case against the appellants is that on 15-1-1992 a dumper bearing brand name Susumo was intercepted by the Preventive Officers, Central Excise Department, Bombay while conducting the transit check and found that dumper cleared without gate pass and without payment of duty belonged to the appellants. Accordingly, the concerned Central Excise Officers were informed about the manufacture of dumpers at Nagpur by the appellans M/s. Susumo Engineering, Nagpur.On investigation, it was found that 3 dumpers were manufactured and cleared by the appellants without taking a Central Excise licence, without fo...
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT639TriDel
1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bomaby-1, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. The appellants are the manufacturers of cigarettes falling under Tariff Item 4(11). The Central Excise Officers noticed that loose cigarettes were utilized for the personal consumption in various departments without accounting for the quantity in the statutory account and without payment of Central Excise duty leviable on the cigarettes. As a sequal thereof a show Cause Notice dated 6-11-94 was issued to the appellants to show cause as to why the Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs 1,05,496.88 for the period from 11-4-84 to 30-10-84 be not recovered from them and penalty be not imposed. The appellants contested the show cause notice on different grounds. The Additional Collector after usual adjudication proceedings confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,000 under Rule 9(2) and Rs. 1,000 under Rule 52A of C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »