Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 155 results (0.023 seconds)Jayman Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT284TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 31-1-1995 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants imported a consignment of 3800 reels of Linen Sutures (Cardio Vascular Sutures) and filed Bill of Entry No. 464, dated 8-4-1994 in which they sought duty free clearance of the goods under Notification No. 208/81 which specifically covers Cardio Vascular Sutures. The appellants were served with a show cause notice asking them to show cause as to why exemption under Notification 208/81 should not be denied in respect of the imported goods on the grounds that the goods being non-sterile sutures they could not be deemed as Cardio Vascular Sutures. The appellants denied the allegation in the show cause notice and claimed that the imported goods were Cardio Vascular Sutures covered by Notification No.208/81. In support of their contention they placed reliance on the letter dated 12-7-1993 from the Director General of Health Services which stated that "Silk Sutures" and...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT307TriDel
1. On hearing the learned Counsel Shri V. Sridharan and the learned Senior Departmental Representative Shri P.K. Jain, we are inclined to grant the prayer for early hearing for the reasons that the Revenue involved is over Rs. 10 lakhs and issue of classification has to be determined of the product in question which may have recurring revenue impact. The appeal is posted for hearing on 22nd December, 1995....
Tag this Judgment!Dayal Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT401TriDel
1. These appeals arises from a common order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore dated 16-7-1993. By this order, the Learned Collector has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 20,09,487/- + 7,363.65 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) each has been imposed on both the appellants. However, he has dropped the proceedings against duty demand made on 92 pieces of decorative laminated sheets.2. The facts of the case are that on receipt of intelligence that M/s.Dayal Laminates Pvt. Ltd. of Maksi Nagda, a manufacturer of paper surfaced hard board and decorative laminates falling under sub-heading No. 4410.90 and 4823.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and M/s.Rubber Products, manufacturer of rubber foam sheets and plywood falling under Heading 4008 and 4408.30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), have been indulging in evasion of duties of...
Tag this Judgment!Pamwi Tissues Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT278TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh i.e. 36-C.E./91, dated 27-12-1991. By this order, the ld. Collector has confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 4,63,75,089.28 and also has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rs. One Crore only). The brief facts of this case are that the appellant licensed to manufacture Paper, falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, were manufacturing, besides other varieties, speciality paper for packaging purposes. During the period 1-3-1986 to 20th March, 1990, they are said to have manufactured and cleared eight varieties of such paper, namely, Glazed Packaging Tissue (GLPT), Laminating Base Tissue (LBT), Release Base Tissue (RBT), Coloured Release Base Tissue (CRBT), Special Packaging Tissue Paper (SPT), Packaging Tissue Paper (PT), Bleached White Tissue Paper (BWT) and Tracing Base Tissue Paper (TBT) for which classification was claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri S.V.S. Khand Udyog Mandli Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT283TriDel
1. The appeal involves the question whether the appellants, herein, would be eligible to claim exemption under Notification 118/75 for the steel tanks manufactured within their sugar factory for the purpose of storing molasses, which is a by-product of theirs. The relevant portion of the notification runs as follows: "...the Central Government hereby exempts goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, manufactured in a-factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon : Provided further that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to complete machinery manufactured in a factory and meant for producing or processing any goods, even if they are intended for use in the same factory in which they are manufactured...." 2. The appellants claimed this exemption in a classification list filed by them in ...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Ram Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)177; 1995(34)DRJ393
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner claiming to be an ex-army personnel enrolled in the Watch and Ward Wing of the Indian Army has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 15-12-1956. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of culpable delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was enrolled in the Watch and Ward Wing of the Indian Army on 16-12-1941. He retired on 15-12-1956, at the age of 41 years. According to the petitioner, he having rendered 15 years service in the Army was entitled to receive pension which having been denied, he has approached the Court. According to the respondents D.V. personnel of Watch and Ward Wing were offered regular engagement vide Government of India letter dated 18th August, 1954 so t...
Tag this Judgment!Architects Bureau Vs. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ412
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) One of the parties to the Award dated 8.5.1992, rendered by the Sole Arbitrator, V.S. Murti (Respondent No.3), approached the court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act by way of this suit (S.No. 2273-A/92) requiring respondent No.3, the sole arbitrator, to file the aforesaid award in together with the proceedings and record of the arbitration case. After the filing of this suit, notice was issued to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 filed the award as suggested by order dated 12.10.1992 and thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner as we as to respondents 1 & 2 under Section 14(1) of the Act. In response to the notices, the respondents filed objections under Sections 30-33 of the Arbitration Act to the award dated 8.5.1992 vide I.A. No. 60/93 whereas the petitioner tied objections to the said award vide I.A. 13637/92.(2) In I.A. 13637/92, the objection raised by the petitioner, to the award, is in respect of Claim no.5 and 6, raised by the petitioner befor...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Kishan Mehta Vs. Ram Prashad
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996RLR77
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) [ED facts : Parties entered into an agreement of sale of suit house on 14.10.77 for Rs. 40,000.00. Plaintiff paid Rs. 36,000.00 and balance was payable at the time of registration of sale deed which was to take place within one month from the date seller obtained permission of Comp. Auth., under Urban Land (C&R;) Act If Deft. failed to perform his part, then pff. was entitled to Rs. 5,000.00. Madanlal & Ors. alleging to be co-owners filed a suit (993/77) in High Court and obtained interim injunction against sale. On 8.9.80, pff. sent notice to Deft. before filing suit. The Deft replied this notice. Pff then filed suit to which Deft. filed W/S. on 3.11.80. As contentions in W/S. differed from the reply to Notice, Deft after filing of reply did not prove and exhibit same After the trial, Adj held that plaint allegations stood proved but denied the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell and granted alternative relief of damaged and compensation. Pff. appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Shadi Ram Yadav Vs. Director General, Cisf and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)179; 59(1995)DLT579; 1995(34)DRJ395
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner serving the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, for short) seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner having satisfactorily completed the period of probation and having been confirmed w.e.f.28th March, 1985 in the rank of Inspector (Executive). (2) According to the petitioner, on 8.3.79 he came on deputation from Bsf to Cisf as Inspector (Executive). S.C.Wadhwa, the respondent No.3 also came on deputation from Bsf to Cisf as Inspector (Executive) on 18.3.79. On 28.3.83, the petitioner and the respondent No.3 were absorbed as Inspector (Executive) in CISF. The petitioner was informed of his having satisfactorily completed the period of probation w.e.f. 23.3.1985 vide office order dated 29.5.85. A provisional seniority list in the rank of Inspector (Executive) for the period 1.1.82 to 30.4.1985 was issued wherein the petitioner is shown at SI.No.541 and the respondent No.3 is shown at SI.No.542. On 27.5.95, a seniorit...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmal Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)691; 59(1995)DLT604
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This petition filed on 16.8.94 by an employee of the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation, holding post of a Driver, seeks quashing of the charge-sheet dated 19.2.87 (Annexure P-2) and notice dated 17.8.87 (Annexure P-l ) requiring him to show cause against the proposed penalty in a departmental enquiry proceedings.(2) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the present petition is not only not maintainable, but is also a gross abuse of the process of the Court and hence must be dismissed. (3) The charge against the petitioner was for his remaining absent frequently on 165 days leave without pay from the period from 1.10.85 to 30.9.86 amounting to misconduct within the meaning of para 19(1) of the Standing Orders governing the Dtc employees. (4) Instead of answering the show cause notice, the petitioner chose to try his luck before a Civil Court. On 11.9.1987he filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi a...
Tag this Judgment!