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.
Bimla Devi and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC40; 1995ACJ789
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present first appeal arises from the award dated 31.3.1989 of Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellants-claimants have moved this Court for enhancement of compensation which was assessed at Rs. 1,20,000/-.2. The appellants filed the petition under Section 110-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the respondents. The deceased, Vipin Kumar, is stated to have died as a result of accident on 21.7.1984 at about 6.50 p.m. while he was driving a two-wheeler scooter No. DIH 3140 from Saraswati Vihar. The scooter met with an accident with truck No. UST 2229 which was being driven by Respondent No. 4. The deceased was employed in Delhi Administration on a salary of Rs. 970/- per month and it was further stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 700/- per month by working as a part-time photographer. The age of the deceased was stated to be 22 years. He was studying in B.Com. II year and ha...
Engineers Prestressed Structures (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Del)705
ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J. M. :These two appeals by the assessed for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 are directed against orders of CIT setting aside assessments made in the case of the assessed under s. 263 of the IT Act by holding them to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.2. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1986-87 was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dt. 2nd March, 1988. Out of income of Rs. 5,33,803, the AO allowed deductions for investment allowance, under s. 80HH and 80-I aggregating to Rs. 2,32,884. The net income so computed was set off against carry forward losses of earlier years. The total income was taken at nil figure. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1987-88 was completed vide order dt. 20th March, 1988. From the total income computed at Rs. 20,02,473, the AO allowed deductions under s. 80HH and 80-I aggregating to Rs. 8,00,988. From the balance income, the AO deducted aggregate figure of Rs. 9,92,635 representing unabsorbed depreciat...
Kailash Paints and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC495Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported a consignment of Zinc Ash. After clearance of the goods, they claimed refund of additional duty paid on the goods on the grounds that the imported zinc ash being the product of smelting operations, it was exempt from additional duty in terms of Notification No. 104/73-C.E., dated 21-4-1973 as amended by Notification No. 32/81, dated 1-3-1981, which exempted Zinc Ash arising in the course of smelting operations from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim for refund on the grounds that goods were charged to additional duty in terms of Notification No. 238/78-Customs, dated 22-12-1978 and Notification No.104/73-C.E., dated 21-4-1973 was not relevant since it was applicable only to indigenous Zinc Ash. The appeal filed against the order passed by the Assistant Collector was also rejected.2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri R. Swaminathan, Ld. Consultant appeared before us. He submitted that the appellants had f...
Laxmi Vijay Brass and Iron Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT325TriDel
1. M/s. Laxmi Vijay Brass & Iron Works have filed the present appeal against the Order-in Appeal dated 14-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The matter relates to the classification of Oil Expellers and parts of Oil Expellers, and the availment of the small scale exemption. The assessee had sought classification of parts of Oil Expellers under sub-heading 8485.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'), and availed small scale exemption separately for such parts, in addition, to the small scale exemption availed of in respect of Expellers themselves which were classifiable under sub-heading No. 8479.00 of the Tariff. In reply to the show cause notice dated 12-4-1989 issued to them, the assessee had contended that both expellers and parts of expellers were classifiable under Heading No. 84.37 of the Tariff, and were eligible for exemption under Notn.No. 111/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. The Asstt. Collector of Centra...
Collector of C. Excise Vs. Nagarjuna Signodes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT522TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order-in-original dated 24-9-1987 passed by the Collector(Appeals), Hyderabad.2. The facts of the case are that a show cause notice dated 8-4-1987 was issued to the assessee calling upon them to explain as to why the "Tensile steel strappings" manufactured and cleared by them should not be brought under Excise Central with immediate effect and why an amount of Rs. 1,13,82,247/-should not be demanded on the basis of goods being classified under Chapter sub-heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by invoking Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with provisions to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The further facts of the case are that the assessees are manufacturers of Tensile Steel Strappings and Steel Seals; after obtaining of Central Excise Licence for manufacture of Seals and whereas no licence had been obtained for the manufacture of the other item namely, 'Tensile Steel Strappings' manufactured by them. Th...
Manjushree Minerals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC327Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals are filed against the order of Collector of Customs, Judicial, Calcutta dated 24-4-1992 and since the issue involved above are common and identical, the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a single order. The proceedings against the appellants were instituted by issue of a show cause notice dated 26-12-1991 inter alia alleging that the appellants namely M/s.Manjushree Minerals and M/s. Ritu Minerals imported Diesel Engines by fraudulently amending the list attached to the licence issued by the licensing authorities by incorporating the words 'with or without gear' and the proceedings culminated in the impugned order confiscating the Diesel Engines imported under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and permitting redemption of the same on payment of fine indicated in the impugned order besides penalty levied on the appellant, importers and also the Directors of the other Company.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, the ld. Counsel at the outset submitted ...
Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT146TriDel
1. This and Cross appeal arises from the order-in-original dated 15-10-1991 passed by the Learned Collector, Indore. By the impugned order the Learned Collector has held that the plastic body manufactured and removed by the appellants during the period 1987-88 to 10-7-1988 and 'Fragrance Mat' during the period 1988-89 to 11-4-1989 is liable to Central Excise duty. Therefore, he directed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Indore, Division II to redetermine the duty liability for the aforesaid period. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also rejected the contention of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-1986. He has held that the Central Excise Officers are aware of manufacturing of plastic body on or after 11-7-1988 and there was suppression of manufacturing prior to 11-7-1988 and therefore, extended period of limitation would apply prior to 11-7-1988. As regards the product 'Fragrance Mat',...
Rajinder Kumar Goyal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT54(Del)
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is challenging the order No. VIII (H) 13/144/89, dated 7 January 1994 of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, suspending his Custom House Agent (CHA) license No. R-14/91 with immediate effect till further orders. This order we reproduce as under : 'REGISTERED POSTOFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM :CUSTOMS HOUSE : NEW DELHI.O. No. VIII (H) 13/144/89 Dated : 7-1-1994...
Surat Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3189
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Lance Naik Surat Singh has preferred the present appeal against the order of conviction passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 42/88. The Additional Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer SI for six months. 2. Appellant Surat Singh was working as a Lance Naik in DAC Platoon, Central Vehicle Depot, Delhi Cantonment. On the date of incident, i.e. 23-10-1984, appellant : PW23 Lance Naik Bala Sahai; and PW25 Sepoy Dewan Singh were on sentry duty on the main gate of Central Vehicle Depot, Delhi Cantonment. As per the rule, a sentry was to perform the duty for two hours and they were performing their duty in rotation. PW23 Lance Naik Bala Sahai was on duty between 6.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. Appellant Surat Singh was to take over the guard duty from him at 8.00 P....
B.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)439; 1995(34)DRJ536
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) These are applications under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act respectively seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.7.94 whereby an award was made a rule of the court and condensation of delay in moving the said application.(2) Canvassing in favor of the applications the learned counsel for respondent No.1 Ms Sudha Srivastava forcefully contended that the award made by the Arbitrator is contrary to clause 10C of the agreement and would vitiate the award in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Sood vs . Uoi, : [1989]1SCR288 ( followed by this Court in Sudhir Bros vs. Dda suit No.201-A!93 decided on 27.1.1995) and so the applications deserve to be dealt with sympathy. On the contrary, Mr Rajesh Lakahanpal learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for instantaneous dismissal of' the applications, they being' wholly devoid of merit. The question of merits in the main case being...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »