Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 6 of about 141 results (0.025 seconds)Stylo Footwear Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT157TriDel
1. M/s. Stylo Footwear who are the appellants in the present appeal are the manufacturers of footwear. The appellant had placed an order for stamping foils from a party at Hongkong on 22nd August, 1989. The goods were shipped from Germany on 5th December 1989 and arrived at the Inland Container Depot, Coimbatore some time in February or March 1989.The bill of entry for the consignment was presented by the appellant on 19th March, 1989. The benefit of Notification 267/89-Cus., dated 1-11-1989 was claimed. This Notification extends concessional rate of duty to stamping foils less than 6" width. After the bill of entry was presented, various queries were raised as to the width of the foils.The appellant furnished a reply. The examination of stamping foils showed that except for one packing, the rest exceeded 6" width. A show cause notice was issued alleging evasion of duty by the appellant by mis-declaring width of the stamping foils and proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ravi Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1997]225ITR302(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. The petitioner in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has claimed the following prayers : (a) That this hon'ble court be pleased to declare that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have no jurisdiction to process Form No. 37-I submitted by respondent No. 4 behind the back of the petitioners on February 22, 1995, when the petitioners had not entered into any such agreement as alleged, ante-dated and attached with Form No. 37-I, nor was the same signed in confirmation of what was mentioned therein as Form No. 37-I was got signed in blank. (b) That this hon'ble court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents Nos. 1 to 3, their servants and agents from in any way taking further steps or proceedings with a view to issue a no objection certificate. (c) That this hon'ble court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order including a writ in the nature of mandamus calling for the records of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Subha Mukherjee Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)103; 1995(34)DRJ333; (1996)ILLJ83Del
S.D. Pandit, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and, hence, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.(3) Petitioner Subha Mukherjee joint Uco Bank as a Clerk on 13.6.1966. She was promoted as an Officer, Junior Management Scale-I on 1.7.1976. On 1.7.1983 she was promoted to the rank of Officer, Middle Management Scale-11. She is working as an Officer at Nehru Place Branch of the respondent in New Delhi. On 24.1.1994 she has been charge-sheeted as regards her conduct in the remittance dated 19.2.1990 in respect of the amount of Rs.26,17,50,000.00 . The petitioner has denied and disputed the charges leveled against .her by filing her reply on 3.5.1994. Thereafter, the appointing authority was pleased to proceed with a departmental proceeding against her and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer and one Shri P.K. Bandopadhyay as a Presenting Office in the said departmental proceeding. Petitioner had given an application -cum-letter on 24.8....
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bal Kishan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ382; 1995LabIC370
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Rule D.B. (2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and, hence, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.(3) Respondent Bal Kishan Sharma was appointed by the petitioner, viz. the Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on temporary basis on 11.5.1972 on compassionate grounds. However, his services were not confirmed and his services were terminated on 13.3.1979 under Rule 5 of Central Civil Services Rules, 1965. According to the respondent his services were terminated on 13.3.1979 by falsely alleging against him that he had produced a false certificate in order to secure the job. According to him he had not at all produced the alleged certificate of Poorva Madhyann Examination Certificate from Varanasi Sanskrit Vidhyalaya but in spite of this a complaint was lodged against him but before the completion of investigation as well as without holding any departmental enquiry his services were terminated for the alleged act of fraud and chea...
Tag this Judgment!Chemical De Universe (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]55ITD144(Delhi)
ORDERPer Miss Moksh Mahajan, Accountant Member - The assessed has challenged the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 1983-84 raising the following ground :'That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) was wrong to confirm the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 shown by the assessed in the revised return as income contrary to the provisions of the I. T. Act and specially u/s 35CCA. The inclusion being contrary to the provisions of the I. T. Act the same be excluded from the total income.'2. The facts in brief are that the assessment for assessment year 1983-84 was finalised at an income of Rs. 39,83,870 vide order dated 17-3-1986. The income was reduced in appeal to Rs. 16,93,726. In a return filed on 30-9-1986 the assessed declared an additional income of Rs. 1,20,000 relating to the purchase made from unregistered dealers who were not traceable. The return was stated to have been field under Amnesty Scheme. As pe...
Tag this Judgment!Stephen Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT68TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh confirming the rejection of the Collector of the refund claim on the ground that it is barred by limitation.The appellant had processed consignment of detergent powder which was to be exported by M/s. Hindustan Lever of which the appellant is a sister concern. The consignment was sent to Bombay in March and April, 1984 but could not be exported as the export order was cancelled. The goods therefore, were taken to Hindustan Lever's factory at Bombay for being remade into other detergent powders suitable for sale in India.M/s. Hindustan Lever had taken the permission from appropriate authority under Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules. M/s. Hindustan Lever filed in September, 1984 a claim before the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay for refund of duty paid on the goods which were manufactured and cleared by the appellant firm at Rajpura. The Asstt.Collector by his communication dated...
Tag this Judgment!Anz Grindlays Bank Pie Vs. the Commissioner, Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)573; 1995(34)DRJ492
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) There are two suits filed by two sets of persons touching the same property and seeking more or less : identical reliefs, though in a bit little different backdrop of events. Two applications in the two suits seeking similar reliefs have been heard analogously and are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.(2) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the length and the vehemence with which the matters have been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the parties require the facts being noticed in a little more details. On each and every point arising for decision, even at this preliminary stage of the suits, the parties and the learned counsel have been at divergence. The only point on which all of them have expressed consensus is that some of the issues arising for decision have far reaching implications and consequences of significance for the public at large.(3) On 19.11.1994, Anz Grindlays Bank, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Bala Vs. Sandeep Foam
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995RLR516
Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this application the plaintiff wants a decree to be passed on the basis of the admission made by the deft. in their w/S. and replies filed to various interim applications. (2) Brief facts are that the plaintiff herein is the owner of property No. C-727, New Friends Colony. This property was leased out to the deft. No. 1. Tenancy has since been terminated by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the deft. carried out illegal and unauthorised construction of wall in the drawing room. It is further the case of the plaintiff that as per the terms of the lease deed and in particular Clause 10, the lessee was not to carry out any additions or alterations in the premises in question; nor permanent gadgets or fixtures without the written permission of the Lesser could be affixed. As per the terms of the lease deed, the tenant could not make any structural changes in the tenanted premises. Whereas as per defendant's own showing in the w/S. the deft. have made structur...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Sh. Chet Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC506
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present judgment will dispose of two appeals, FAO No. 205/ 88 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Devi and Ors. and FAO No. 210/88 Smt. Shanti Devi and Ors. v. Shri Chet Ram and Ors. The first appeal is filed by the Insurance Company impugning the award dated July 22,1988 of Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The second appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.2. The brief facts are that on November 26, 1979 at about 7.30 a.m. one Shri Anup Singh was on duty as Assistant Sanitary Inspector and was standing outside the tea shop of Ramesh Chander near D.T.C. bus stand Along with deceased Ishwar Singh, all of a sudden bus bearing No. DLP 5312 being driven by respondent No. 7 (respondent No. 1 herein) in a rash and negligent manner hit the above said Anup Singh from the back side. It further hit Ishwar Singh who died on the spot. After the accident the claimant Anup Singh became unconscious and was removed in a taxi ...
Tag this Judgment!Jupiter Radios Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT365TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 11-4-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. The appellants are manufacturers of T.V. sets. They imported one Automatic Wire Cutting and Stripping machine, model AWY-40 from Japan. In the Bill of Entry filed for the clearance of the machine it was declared as Automatic Wire Cutting and Stripping machine. The clearance of the machine was claimed under OGL vide Srl. No. 11/42 of Appendix 1B of the Import Policy, 1984-85. The importers also claimed benefit under Notification No. 118/80-Cusv dated 19-6-1980 vide Srl. No. 105 of the table annexed to the notification which exempted "Automatic Wire Cutting and Stripping machine with or without welding attachment or semi-conductors, capacitors or resistors" falling under Chapter 84 or 85 or 90 or 92 of the Customs Tariff and used in the electronic industry, from duty in excess of 20% ad valorem. On the ground that the handling manual found in the package in which the machine was...
Tag this Judgment!