Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 11 of about 155 results (0.027 seconds)Saraswati Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996ACJ1194; 1995IIIAD(Delhi)260; AIR1996Delhi68; 59(1995)DLT312; 1995(34)DRJ191
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) John Dryden (1631-1700) said : To die is landing on some distant shore. Kashmiri Lal Bansal who died on April 3, 1974 in the Holy Family Hospital of hepatic malignancy, metastesis, diabetes and haemachromatosis seems to have landed in this Court. In any case, one of his survivors is proving true what Thomas Mann said: A man's dying is more the survivor's affair than his own. (2) The gentleman happened to be insured with the defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India in a sum of Rupees one lac under what is known as Plan and Term 14-20. This policy had actually lapsed in the year 1972 for reason of default in the payment of premium but was revived on March 29, 1973. It is this policy which has now become the bone of contention. Whereas, the widow of Mr.Bansal is laying her claim being a nominee a id widow of the insured, the Life Insurance Corporation of India seeks to wash off its liability on the plea that the claim stands repudiated as Mr.Bansal, at the time of...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.S. Industries Vs. Appellate Tribunal Sales and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ342
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This writ petition pertains to the question of pre-deposit to be made by the assesses/petitioner under the provisions of Delhi Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act relevant to the assessment year 1988-89. The Assessing Authority by his assessment order dated 31.3.1993 assessed the petitioner to Sales Tax to the tune of Rs.20,09,940.60. The Assessing Authority further imposed an interest on the aforesaid amount to the extent of Rs.l6,07,952.40 and penalty of Rs.4,000.00 . Accordingly, the total demand raised against the petitioner towards sales tax relevant to the assessment year 1988-89 was to the tune of Rs.36,21,893.00 .(2) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, Delhi. The appellate court admitted the aforesaid appeal subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 and Rs.4,000.00 as a condition precedent for the entertainment of the aforesaid appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pronts Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT419TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in her order had held as under :- "Admissibility of modvat credit on Oxygen gas used in relation to the manufacture of S.S. ingots is now a settled issue. I place reliance on CEGAT's judgment in case of Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta v. Hindustan Dev. Corporation, Hoogly reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 376 wherein benefit of modvat credit on oxygen gas is allowed when oxygen is used for cutting purpose. The issue stands settled in terms of Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh T.N. No. 68-C.E./90, dated 19-7-1990 wherein mod-vat credit on oxygen, acetylene gases, used for cutting or welding purposes is permitted to be availed. In view thereof, I accept the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and by allowing consequential relief.2. The facts in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ingots. They were availing modvat credit on inputs specified under Not...
Tag this Judgment!Goindwal Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT540TriDel
1. This Application seeks restoration of Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 vide Final Order No. A/138/95-NRB, dated 6-3-1995.2. Arguing for the appellants, the Ld. Advocate, submitted that unfortunately in this case the Ld. Proxy Advocate failed to communicate in time the date fixed for hearing and since no notice was issued she failed to appear on the date fixed. In view of this the Ld. Advocate prays that the appeal be restored since there has been a genuine bona fide error.3. The Ld. D.R. submits that in the circumstances explained, the appellants should not be made to suffer for the fault, however, inadvertent, of the Ld. Proxy Advocate and therefore does not oppose the prayer.4. Considered. It was expected that the Ld. Proxy Advocate would have conveyed the date fixed for hearing to the Ld. Advocate in time.Considering, however, that the appellants should not suffer because of the error committed in conveying the date of heari...
Tag this Judgment!Choksi Brothers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT491TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 24-11-1988 passed and issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.By the said order-in-appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has rejected the appellants' appeal against the order-in-original dated 5-1-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division K/II, Bombay I Collectorate. By the said order-in-original, the Assistant Collector had rejected the appellants' claim for treating following products, namely - as non-excisable and not falling under Chapter sub-heading 3706 .00, He has also rejected the appellants' claim for full exemption of duty to the "Photographic Mounts" (i.e. Printer and/or Embossed paper Boards).2. When the matter was called, none was present for the appellants, who have sought decision on merits. They have contended that the products X-Ray developer powder and Lith developer powder are made from bought out chemical ingredients and the process they undertake is only ...
Tag this Judgment!Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC80Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, Ghaziabad, have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal No. 500/CE/MRT/94, dated 10-1-1995, passed by the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. The matter relates to the classification of the product 'Sharbat Rooh Afza'. Prior to the budgetary changes made in the year 1994, the product was being classified by the appellants under sub-heading No.2107.91 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). Heading No. 21.07 of the Tariff covered - edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included. On 23-3-1994, a revised classification list was filed by the appellants, classifying the 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' under sub-heading No.2202.90 of the Tariff. This sub-heading covered - other non-akoholic beverages not including fruit or vegetable juices of Heading No. 20.01.The appellants wanted this revised classification to be effective from 1-3-1994. It was alleged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Charanjit Singh, Gaba Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996CriLJ205
D.P. Wadhwa, J. Rule D.B. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act) and seeks a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for his release. 2. The petitioner was detained in pursuance to order dated 1 August, 1994 of the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory in Delhi passed under Section 3(1) of the Act on his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention as required under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act for the purpose of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. The petitioner was told that if he desired to make a representation against his detention to t...
Tag this Judgment!Gian Chand Kaushal Vs. M.C. Joshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)967; 60(1995)DLT546
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india seeking relief for the issue of the Writ of Mandamus directing registration of F.I.R. against the respondent No. I, and payment of Rs. 50,000.00 by way of compensation consequent upon the commission of offences under Sections 323/342/506/348/341 Indian Penal Code . by the respondent No. 1. (2) It is beyond the pale of controversy that on 25th February, 1992, a case R.C.6(A) 92 was registered at A.C.B. branch of C.B.I, under Sections 120B/420/ 467/468/471 Indian Penal Code . and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner's son-in-law, Shri Madhukar, the then Joint Director (Housing), D.D.A., Delhi; that investigation of the case was entrusted to the respondent No. 1, that on 13th April, 1994, the petitioner attended the office of the respondent No. 1 in response to a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. served on him and that on that day th...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT541; 1995(34)DRJ301; 1995LC25(Delhi); 1995RLR515
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged his detention under order passed 'by one Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance on 3.12.1993 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. It is pointed out that in the said order, there is no mention of the petitioner's right to make. the representation to the detaining authorities. Even in the grounds of detention at the end, the detenu has been informed that he could make a representation if he so desires to the Central Advisory Board (Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988) or that he could address the representation to the Central Government, Ministry of Finance. In these grounds of detention also, there is no mention of the detenu being informed of the right to make representation to the detaining authority, i.e., the Joint Secretary himself. Counsel for the petitioner has cited the ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Manohar Glass Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT163TriDel
1. Being aggrieved with the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), whereby he dropped the demand holding that it was time barred, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. When the case was called, Shri Mohan Lal, learned JDR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri S.C. Vidya Sagar, appeared on behalf of the respondents as their representative and requested for adjournment on the ground that their working partner is ill. After considering the request, we rejected the same and proceeded to decide the appeal.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue, Shri Mohan Lal, learned JDR, submitted that since the respondents misdeclared the process of manufacture of glass rods in the Classification List, they were guilty of suppressing the facts and also of mis-stating the facts.4. We have considered the submissions. The learned Collector (Appeals) while holding that the demand was time barred, has observed as follows : "3. In this case, a demand for Rs. 1,2...
Tag this Judgment!