Delhi Court May 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.
Sri Durga Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC241Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by M/s. Durga Cement Company Limited against the decision of Collector of Central Excise, Patna communicated to them by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ranchi turning down their request for credit of duty paid on purchase of granulated slag for production of Portland Cement.2. In the appeal, it has been contended by the appellants that the purported order of the Collector has been passed without affording them any opportunity of personal hearing. The Collector had not appreciated the fact that if any decision is passed to the prejudice of any person, the rules and principles of natural justice are required to be followed. The purported order of the Collector communicated by the Assistant Collector cannot be treated as an order under the law. It is further contended that although a discretionary power has been vested in the Collector for relaxation of the provision regarding giving declaration under Notification 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 that power cannot be ex...
Sh. Chaman Lal JaIn Vs. Sh. Arun Kumar JaIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi108; 1995(34)DRJ615
ORDER1. The applicant Mr. Jagdish Parsad Gupta has by this application challenged the compromise decree passed vide order dated 20th December, 1988. In order to appreciate the challenge made against the said decree, the relevant and material facts of the case have to be understood.2. Mr. Chaman Lal Jain filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of account which was listed as suit No.924/86. The present applicant, Jagdish Parsad Gupta, was defendant No. 4 therein. He filed written statement and contested that suit by taking the pleas that the suit was barred by time. Suit was not maintainable because the said partnership of which dissolution and rendition of account was sought came to an end on account of variation in the term of the said partnership deed, Hence no relief could be sought on the basis of the partnership deed which got frustrated. On merits also he denied the claim of the plaintiffs therein. During the pendency of that suit, in December, 1988 parties enter...
Gulmohar Finance Ltd. Vs. in Re and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas544(Delhi)
J.K. Mehra, J. 1. Gulmohar Finance Limited has moved this petition for sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of Cluster Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Everlite Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Bigway Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Sakar Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anupam Industrial Resources Ltd., Square Software Pvt. Ltd. and Ankur Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferor companies') with Gulmohar Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee company'). It has also been claimed that the proposed scheme will result in economies of scale, reduction in administrative and procedural work, better and more productive utilisation of various resources and will enable the undertakings concerned to effect internal economies and optimize productivity and profitability. 2. It is also claimed that there are no proceedings pending under sections 235 to 251 of the Companies Act, 1956, against either the transferor company or the transferee company. 3. Notice was issued to the official liquidator a...
Chaman Lal JaIn Vs. Arun Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi518
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The applicant Mr.Jagdish Parsad Gupta has by this application challenged the compromise decree passed vide order dated 20th December,1988. In order to appreciate the challenge made against the said decree, the relevant and material facts of the case have to be understood. (2) MR.CHAMAN Lal Jain filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of account which was listed as Suit No.924/86. The present applicant, Jagdish Parsad Gupta, was defendant No.4 therein. He filed written statement and contested that suit by taking the pleas that the suit was barred by time. Suit was not maintainable because the said partnership of which dissolution and rendition of account was sought came to an end on account of variation in the term of the said partnership deed. Hence no relief could be sought on the basis of the partnership deed which got frustrated. On merits also he denied the claim of the plaintiffs therein. During the pendency of that suit, in December,1988 parti...
Polar Marmo Agglomerates Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)48; 1995(34)DRJ149
(1) We are deciding this writ petition on a very limited issue confined to the facts of this case itself. (2) The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for various reliefs and particularly seeks a writ, order of direction quashing Telex/Fax message No. 605/226/94-DBK dated 25 January .1995 issued by the Member (Customs) of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. (3) The petitioner, on the strength of advance license under duty exemption scheme was entitled to import rough blocks/slabs of natural marble duty free to meet export obligations as per the scheme. Respondents say that what the petitioner imported was finished marble slabs and, thus, contravened the provisions of the Customs Act having misdeclared the goods, and that investigation and adjudication proceedings under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the,Customs Act, 1962, are pending and yet to be completed. It is stated, thereafter n...
Taj Serpent Eggs Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT78TriDel
1. Shri G. Shiv Dass, learned Counsel for the appellants, M/s. Taj Serpent Eggs Factory states that two issues are involved in the present appeal. The first question is whether their product (Serpent Eggs) classifiable as fire works. The department has held the same to be fire works and since they have used the brand name 'cock' for their aforesaid product and since that brand name 'cock' is the property of Sri Kaliswari Fireworks, they were held to be not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93.2. On the first point, the learned Counsel stated that the issue now stands concluded by the Tribunal decision in M/s. Taj Fireworks Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Madumi reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 180. It was held therein that Serpent Egg when set on fire produces ash form of snake in midst of negligible smoke. That was only an Pyrotechnic article and no fireworks. He was initially of the view that though this issue stands concluded in their favour in view of the afore...
Satish Chandra Gupta Vs. Assessing Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)54ITD508(Delhi)
1. This appeal, by the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91, is directed against order of CIT (Appeals). The main issue relates to computation of chargeable capital gain arising on sale of house situated in 54, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The assessee is also aggrieved on disallowance of loss rT Rs. 12,07,010 on sales of shares.2. The assessee sold his house property on 5-1-1990, for a total sum of Rs.1.18 crores. The assessee claimed that it had invested Rs. 8 lakhs in purchase of house property at Kailash Hills, New Delhi and spent another sum of Rs. 14 lakhs in the construction of house at NOIDA. The capital gain accruing on the sale of the aforesaid property, according to the assessee, was chargeable to tax as per the following calculations: On sale of House property situated at Rs. No. 34, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 1,18,00,000 Less: Expenses on sale 2,46,000 Net sales consideration 1,15,54,000 on 1-4-1974 2,45,000 ----------- Less : Exempted capital gains under Section 48(2)...
Ram Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3838
2. Victim Gopal Singh is the brother of first informant Shyam Singh. Victim Gopal Singh was residing in House No. J-1434 whereas first informant Shyam Singh is residing in House No. J-1435. Appellant Ram Singh is their neighbour and he was residing in house No. J-1439 along with two brothers, sisters and other relations. The incident in question has taken place on the night between 27-11-1985 and 28-11-1986. PW/1 Om Shankar is the tenant of deceased Gopal Singh. On that night PW/1 Om Shankar wanted to go out of Delhi by train in the night. Gopal Singh had, thereforee, borrowed a three-wheeler auto rickshaw from a friend of his and had parked the same at about 10.00 p.m. in front of his house. He had brought the said three-wheeler auto rickshaw in order to reach PW/1 Om Shankar at New Delhi railway station. A few minutes after the three-wheeler auto rickshaw was parked by Gopal Singh in front of his house appellant Ram Singh came there and started the auto rickshaw in order to take it a...
Kamal Jewellers Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1995
Reported in: [1995]55ITD451(Delhi)
ORDERPer B.S. Saluja, J.M. - These appeals have been filed by the assessed against imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(a), section 273(1)(b) and certain additions and disallowances made in the assessment under section 143(3).2. Appeal No. ITA 1531 (Delhi) 90 and appeal No. ITA 1532 (Delhi) 1990 have been filed late by 266 days. Similarly appeal No. ITA 1533 (Delhi) 90 has been filed late by about 2 years and 8 months approximately. The department has opposed the condensation of delay requested by the assessee.3. The assessed had made applications on the date of filing of the appeals i.e., 7-3-1990 for condensation of delay and the main reasons given with reference to penalty appeals are that the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) dated 1-2-1989 were received by the assessed sometime in April, 1989, that the partner of the firm Mr. Kamal Narayan had a heart attack in 1989 and could not attend the filing of the appeals, that the firm closed its business in 1983 and as such the ...
Jayant Oil Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC451Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-original passed by the Addl.Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. By this impugned order, the ld. Additional Collector has held that 'Glycerine' produced out of castor oil, falling under Chapter No. 15.06 is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 as amended by Notification No. 80/86, dated 10-2-1986.2. The charge against the appellant assessee is that they were manufacturing glycerine and clearing the same without the payment of duty. They claimed clearance without payment of duty in terms of the above-noted notification and had filed classification list 141/86 w.e.f. 24-4-1986, which had been duly approved by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, on 27-10-1986. However, the Preventive Officers of the department paid a surprise visit on 12-11-1986 for checks. It was found that the assessee were manufacturing Castor Oil and its various derivatives viz. : all falling under sub-he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »