Delhi Court September 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.
Rajiv and Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT429TriDel
1. M/s. Rajiv & Company have filed the captioned appeal. The appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order had held as under : "I have considered the submissions made by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and during the course of personal hearing. The point regarding wastage of gas has not been denied by the appellant during the course of adjudication and also at the appellate stage. Rule 57D stipulates that credit in respect of inputs is allowable which may be contained in any waste, refuse or by product arising during the course of manufacture of the final product. Since there has been no manufacturing process involved, credit taken on this count is not admissible. As regards time-bar issue, there was no time-limit under Rule 57-I during the period to which the demand pertains. In view of above, the orders passed by Assistant Collector are correct and do not deserve any interference.2. The facts in brief of the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Voltas Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT645TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order-in-appeal, dated 30-9-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of water coolers falling under Tariff Item No. 29A(1) which were exempted under Notification No. 87/82, dated 28-2-1982. It was charged that the respondents had manufactured cabinets meant for the coolers but they had not filed any classification list or price list in respect of the cabinets and had not paid any duty on the same before they were used captively in the manufacture of water coolers. Show cause notice was issued accordingly and the same was duly answered by the party denying the charges stating that no items answering to the description 'Cabinets' comes into existence in the course of manufacture of water coolers. They described the process of manufacture of water coolers in which the rectangular casings housing the water cooler assembled comes into existence and such casing ca...
Mohd. Hanif Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT357TriDel
1. All these three stay petitions arises from the same order-in-original dated 31-1-1995, passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Lucknow. By this order he has ordered for absolute confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 22,40,500/- under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lacs on Shri Mohd. Hanif and Shri Anees and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Abdul Rauf under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The allegations against these appellants are that the officers on receipt of information searched the residence of Shri Anees in presence of Shri Abdul Rauf brother of Anees on dated 31-7-1991 at about 02.00 hours and recovered goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 22,40,500/-.The details of which have been shown in the recovered memo dated 31-7-1991. Abdul Rauf could not produce any document showing the legal import of the recovered goods. On interrogation in his statement dated 31-7-1991 he stated that the recovered goods were smuggled from Krishna N...
Nirankar Frasad Seth Vs. Commissioner, M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT159
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) Petitioner through the present writ petition seeks quashment of the order dated July 1, 1977 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, and his reinstatement with full back wages. (2) The facts which are necessary to be gone into for the disposal of the preset petition are as under : that the petitioner was ie- crusted as a lower division clerk by the respondent vide their appointment letter dated July 14, 1958 in the scale of Rs. 63-8l-EB-4-125- 130 on a properly temporary basis in the Engineering Department. Later on the' petitioner was posted as a Bill Clerk, in Zone No. E.E. (IV), Jhandewalan, Delhi in the year 1963. Shri Prabhakar Swarup was acting as an Executive Engineer in the said Zone in the year 1964. (3) The Director of Vigilance, Shri Chaturvedi Along with certain other officers raided the office of the Executive Engineer-IV, where the petitioner was working, on December 11, 1964. The p...
Desh Deep Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT425TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Jaipur, confiscating a parcel of rough emeralds under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 while permitting it to be redeemed on fine of Rs. 60,000/- and also imposing a penalty on the appellant of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act.2. Shri A.C. Jain, Advocate for the appellant says that the appellant is an importer of precious stones. The appellant had placed the order on a supplier in London for supply of rough emeralds and they filed the bill of entry showing the value of the goods in accordance with the invoice. Subsequently a corrected invoice was received which was also filed with the Customs. By this time, however the customs had examined the goods and appraised the value at US $ 26112.15 against the invoiced value of US $ 59987.25. The appellants had waived conditions of a show cause notice. However, at the time of hearing Shri J.K. Shekhri, a Director of the supplier had himself confir...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)493; 60(1995)DLT506
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the respondents refusing to grant to the petitioner No. 1 certificate in terms of s. 32A(2B)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86. 2. By a judgment and order dt. 4th Feb., 1987 this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition in liming. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court the petitioner moved the Supreme Court and by order dt. 13th March, 1989 the Supreme Court set aside the order of this Court dismissing the writ petition in liming and remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh disposal of the writ petition by the High Court with a reasoned judgment supporting the view taken by the High Court. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court this writ petition was taken up for admission and was admitted by this Court. This writ petition is acco...
Kohinoor Paints Faridabad (P) Ltd. Vs. Paramveer Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ151
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The point involved in the above Civil Original Petition is a very short one. It relates to the alleged assignment of trade mark in favor of the respondent. The plaintiff got that registration on 26th of March 1982. In 1989 the extension was granted. The respondent according to the petitioner, was an employee of the petitioner Co. On 2nd of November 1992 Tirlok Singh, who was in the entire control of the Company died. On 13th of September 1994 the services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioner Co. It would appear that on the 15th of October 1994 the defendant filed a suit in the District Court for injunction on the basis of the assignment of trade mark in his Company. What is stated by the petitioner is that the alleged assignment letter dated 19th of June 1992 had been relied on by the respondent before the Registrar and made an application under T.M. 24, as provided in Rule 71 for recognition of the assignment and without any enquiry was a concocte...
Toye Mobka Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT160
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. This is an appeal directed against the order of conviction dated 16.9.1992, passed by Mr. S.L. Khanna.ASJ. The appellant has been convicted under Sections21/28 read with Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years plus a fine of Rs. I lakh, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for another one year. (2) Briefly staling, the facts of the case are that the appellant, who is a Nigerian National, was leaving the country on the night between 20th and 21 st May, 1990 and before his departure, he was apprehended as the Immigration Authorities had the information, according to the Immigration Officer, who has been examined as a witness, that some Nigerian Nationals are trying to smuggle narcotics out of the country. The appellant was searched in the present case straightaway without being informed of his right that he, if he so desired, could be search...
Weldon Sales Corporation Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT226; 1995(35)DRJ140
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a Civil Misc.(Main) against the order of Financial Commissioner, Delhi dated November 12, 1984. By that order, learned Financial Commissioner granted permission to the first respondent for the execution of the decree of eviction passed by the Civil Court against the petitioner in respect of plot bearing No.7199, 7200 and 7201, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and set aside the order of the Competent Authority dated January 19,1984 whereby it had directed the first respondent to get the plan of the proposed building, which he intended to raise on the disputed land, approved by the civic body for the purpose of getting permission under Section 19 Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The facts giving rise to the petition are as under:- (2) The Delhi Improvement Trust agreed to sell land measuring 5826 sq. ft. comprised in Municipal Nos.7199, 7200 and 7201 Sadar Bazar, Delhi to the first respondent and Mr.Prem Narain and the possession thereof was handed over t...
Dhown Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT366TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. In his order, the Additional Collector has ordered confiscation of a consignment which on examination was found to consist of ten bales of wool waste and 38 of synthetic waste on the ground that the goods were declared as wool waste.2. Shri H.O. Arora, Advocate for the appellant says that the appellant was guided in making its declaration on the basis of the invoice and the analytical test report issued by the supplier. These indicated the wool content to be not less than 70%. The advocate says that therefore, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable. He also argues that ten bales which contained wool waste cannot be used to conceal bales four times this number, and confiscation of these bales is therefore not sustainable. He also says that the goods being in the nature of waste, it cannot be accepted that they will be homogeneous in content and therefore a pragmatic view has to be taken. He the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »