Delhi Court October 1996 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.
Jodhraj Singh Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR871(Delhi)
C. M. NAYAR J-This petition is directed against the respondents for releasing a sum of Rs. 84,000 which has been deducted towards incometax from the payment made to the petitioner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.The petitioner was a permanent employee in Tata Iron and Steel Company at jamshedpur from September 10, 1957. He took voluntary retirement on July 25, 1992, in view of the scheme and his request for voluntary retirement was accepted by respondent No. 3, vide communication dated July 23, 1992. The total amount accruing to the petitioner in respect of the voluntary retirement benefits was Rs. 3,98,336.70 out of which a sum of Rs. 84,000 was deducted as income-tax and the balance amount of Rs. 3,14,336.70 was paid to him. The petitioner claims refund of Rs. 84,000 on the ground that, vide notification dated April 1, 1992, issued by the Government a new clause in section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AcV), was incorporated, namely, clause (10...
Jaggsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT414TriDel
1. The appellants filed the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.468-CE/DLH/92, dated 16-9-1992. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of medicines flailing under sub-heading 3003.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of the medicine manufactured by the appellant is Metadec 25 nandrolone decanoate injections B.P. The appellants have mentioned medicine as filled up in ampoule and they are marketing the medicine along with disposable syringes and disposable needles which area packed along with the medicine in blister packing.The Modvat credit on disposable syringe and needle packed along with the injections has been denied by the department on the ground that they are not used in or in relation to manufacture of medicine and is not a packing material.2. Ld. Counsel M.P. Dev Nath appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the medicine is filled up in a ampoule and the duty paid bought out disposable syringes and disposable needles are packed in blister packing on which...
inter Care Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC717Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein filed Bills of Entry dated 9-2-1993 and 28-4-1993 and 24-5-1993 for the clearance of goods valued at Rs. 18,92,061, Rs. 18,16,702/- and Rs. 19,78,111/- respectively, described as "Agglutinating Sera" for the detection of Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (HCG) in urine (SPIA), claiming classification under sub-heading 3002.90 of the Customs Tariff and benefit of duty free assessment under Notification No. 208/81, dated 22-9-1981 in terms of SI. No. 216 of Schedule A appended to the Notification covering "Agglutinating Sera". On examination the goods were found to be in the form of kit consisting of (1) rubber stoppered flat bottomed glass tube filled with accusphere (spherical solid particle) and (2) one dropper containing buffer solution in glass tube. The labels found with the goods, indicated them as "Biological Diagnostic Reagents". The importers' catalogue printed in India indicated that the product is about "Pregnancy diagnosis through colour change" (SPIA t...
Raipur Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT147TriDel
1. This is a reference application which has been sent to me as a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion is "Whether the reference application deserves to be rejected as proposed by the learned Member (Technical) or the questions as framed are required to be referred to the High Court as proposed by the learned Member Qudicial). The five questions are as under : "(i) Whether fire bricks which form part of the electric arc furnace stand excluded from modvat coverage in terms of the explanation to Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 when they fall for classification under Chapter 69 (covering ceramics) and not Chapter 84 or 85 which cover machines and machinery? (ii) Whether the items excluded specifically from the scope of the expression "inputs" in the Explanation to Rule 57A should be held to cover not only items like machines, machinery, equipment and apparatus but also parts thereof. (iii) Whether the majority view in the present case was correct in not having followed...
Salico Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT664TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 24-11-1988 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay who has confirmed the order passed by Asstt. Collector rejecting the refund claim on the ground that inspite of office letter dated 19-5-1986, the applicants had failed to produce the evidence called for by the office, that they had not produced the end-use certificate justifying the utilisation of the imported goods for the manufacture of "Printed Circuit Boards".2. We have heard Shri Bhupinder Singh, Proprietor for the appellants and Shri K.K. Jha, ld. DR, for the Revenue. The appellants had produced all the necessary documents evidencing the utilisation of the imported item for the manufacture of the final goods. The appellants submits that there was delay in producing the documents and therefore, the pray that the matter can be remanded for de novo consideration.4. We have heard both sides. We are satisfied that it is a fit case for remand. We find that Notification No. 231/83, dated ...
J.B. Solvex Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT694TriDel
1. These are stay applications filed with reference to the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated Nil.2. Learned counsel stated that the main issue involved in this case is as to whether rice bran oil was leviable to Cess under the Vegetable Cess Act, 1983.3. Learned counsel stated that in respect of this issue, two different High Courts have given two dramatically opposite verdicts Whereas the Allahabad High Court has observed in the case of U.P. Solvent Extractors' Association v. Union of India reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T.18 (All.) that it was not leviable to cess as rice was not oil seed and rice bran cannot be considered as a plant material but was merely a by-product of rice paddy whereas the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent Extractors Association v.Union of India reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 198 (A.P.) has held that the rice bran was a part of the plant origin of the rice seed which was undoubtedly a plant part and ther...
National Polymers and ors. Vs. Eastern Polymers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT800; (1997)115PLR8
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. In this case, the respondent filed a written statement-cum-counter claim. Since the counter claim happened to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court it returned the same to be presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction, but did not return the plaint in the present suit and directed that the suit will continue to be tried by him and granted the petitioners time to file written statement refers the counter claim. A photocopy of the written statement was placed on record though it was not signed. (2) The counter claim was presented in this Court and was registered as a suit and is still being tried on transfer to the Court of Additional District Judge after the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge was enhanced. Thereafter the matter has been adjourned repeatedly by the Trial Court trying the suit where from the present Civil Revision has arisen, to enable the petitioner to file the written statement but no written...
Sheela Devi Vs. Shital Parshad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT562; (1997)115PLR4
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) The present appeal is directed against the order of the First Appellate Court, i.e., the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.8.1985 setting aside the Additional Rent Controller's order rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 for recall of the ex-parte order and decree against the appellant. The Tribunal has taken pains to go into the details of the evidence brought on record and has on appraisal of the evidence, come to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree because of the reasons, inter alia, that the respondent had not been served with the summons of the eviction proceedings in the case and that the authority of the Lawyer, who had put in appearance on his behalf, could not be proved and it could not be attributed to the respondent as his signatures were denied on the Vakalatnama by the respondent's son who appeared as a witness. Furthermore, the assertion that the respondent was served...
Sukh Ram Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)445; 64(1996)DLT633; 1996(39)DRJ293
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) After registration of the case Fir No.RC- 3A/96/CBI/ACU(IV) under Section 120-B and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and two other persons, various premises of the petitioner were searched when large amount of cash and other assets were recovered. The Central Bureau of Investigation also came to know about the petitioner owning various immovable properties. The assets which were recovered and which had come to the knowledge of the Central Bureau of Investigation were substantially disproportionate to his known sources of income for which, according to the Cbi, there was no prima facie Explanationn. A case Fir No.RC-4A/96 was, thereforee, registered against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (2) At the time of registration of the earlier Fir being RC-3A/96 and at the time of search, the petitioner was out of the country having alleg...
Tarachand Vs. Bishan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT645; 1996(39)DRJ346
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a revision against the order of eviction passed under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the landlord, respondent herein. The revision was admitted on 5.2.1992 and has come up for final hearing after the Court had ordered expeditious hearing. The petitioner through his counsel has placed on record a certified copy of the sale deed in respect of the premises in dispute. The Municipal numbers given in the sale deed represent the property, a portion whereof is in occupation of the petitioner which is the premises in dispute. The fact of sale was duly conveyed by counsel for petitioner to Mr J.R. Tandon, counsel for. the respondent who was appearing earlier and he was given time on 16.9.1996 to ascertain the facts. Counsel for the respondent did not appear on 24.9.1996 nor has he appeared today. In the light of the development mentioned above whereby the property in dispute no lon...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »