Delhi Court February 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.
Man Mohan Lal Vs. Suman Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)925; 63(1996)DLT772
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.11.1995 passed by Shri A.K. Pathak, Additional District Judge,dismissing the application of the petitioner for variation of the maintenance allowance in H.M.A Case No. 244/1991.(2) The petitioner filed the petition before the Additional District Judge seeking divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty. The respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. By order dated 25.1.1994, the Trial Court wa spleased to grant maintenance to the respondent at Rs. 500.00 per month with effect from 14.8.1992, the date on which the aforesaid application was filed and also litigation expenses at Rs. 1,100.00. The petitioner moved a revision petition before this Court which was numbered as Revision Petition No. 232/1994 and by orderdated 20.9.1994, this Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the aforesaid revision ...
Hem Chand Etc. Vs. Hari Kishan, Jayna Cc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR189
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) [ED. facts : Appellants had leased out suit premises to respondents 1 to 4 by means of lease deed dt. 30.5.57. who had sub-let portions of premises per consent in deed. Alleging that some portions have been unlawfully sub-let in 1965 & 1969 to respdt, 5, they obtained permission u/S 19 of Slum Areas Act on 4.6.70 and sued respdt. for eviction u/S. 14(i) (b), (c) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Respdts. 1 to 4 alone contested and filed separate w/Ss contending that they had not sub-let any portion to respdt 5 and they had sub-let same to one MK. Bhatia who had done unlawful sub-letting to respdt. 5 and that they have applied for permission to sue respdt. 5. They also alleged that one Manak Chand was co-owner and co-landlord. Respdt. no. 5 also took the same position contending that Manak Chand was necessary party and in his absence it was a case of partial eviction. Reply of three appellants was that partition had taken place between them and Manak Chand and respdts. ...
Krishan Lal @ Krishan Kumar Vs. K.M. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1108; 62(1996)DLT411
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present appeal arises from judgment dated February 5, 1993 passed by Mr. K.S. Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. (2) The brief facts are that the respondent filed petition for eviction on July 5, 1987 on the allegations that Krishan Lal @ Krishan Kumar, since deceased, father of the appellants, was the tenant in the premises, as detailed in the petition for eviction, forming part of property No. B-3/16, Model Town, on a monthly rental of Rs. 20.00 excluding water and electricity charges and after the purchase of the above property by him under registered Sale Deed dated December 9, 1980, the said Krishan Lal became a tenant under the respondent. It was alleged that after the death of Krishan Lal, the appellants neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent with effect from January 1, 1986 despite service of notice of demand dated May 7, 1987. It was further averred that in eviction Petition No. 122/1981 (K.M. Sharma v. Krishan Lal). Krishan Lal was given benefit...
Sewing System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT415TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignment of (1) Shoulder pads and (2) lining and interlining materials from M/s. Helsatex, West Germany and filed Bill of Entry dated 16-4-1986 declaring the assessable value as per the invoice which showed the rate of 14.70 Deutsche Marks (DM) for shoulder pads and 1.90 DM for lining and interlining materials.Clearance of the goods was claimed against REP licences. Show cause notice dated 7-11-1986 was issued alleging that the appellants had mis-declared the description of goods as shoulder pads and these were also lining and inter lining material. It was also alleged that the other material was of width 90 cms. and hence not covered by the REP licences produced which permitted import of goods not exceeding 87-1/2 cms. width and required a specific licence. By an addendum, dated 27-12-1986, a paragraph was added stating that the prices for the goods supplied by M/s. Helsatex W. Germany as obtained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi w...
Swift Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT56TriDel
1. This Appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.R-385/BII-243/87, dated 30th July, 1987 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. The issue that falls for determination relates to classification of the product called "CAL-750" claimed by the appellants to be a food product classifiable under Tariff Item 1-B or, in the alternative, under Tariff Item 68, both of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.While claiming classification under Tariff Item 68, the Appellants also claimed that they are entitled to exemption by virtue of Notification No. 234/82-C.E. The authorities below rejected this claim and classified the product CAL-750 under Tariff Item 68 and at the same time, since it was held not to be a food or food product, denied exemption under the said Notification.3. None present for the appellants when the matter was called. The appellants, however, have requested for decision on merits.4. Arguing for the Revenue, Ld. D.R. submits that this product is made up of proteins, fats...
Altos India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT147TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of computers. Consignment manufactured and cleared by it was intercepted by the Central Excise officer. The driver of the vehicle carrying the consignment could not produce any gate pass but five gate passes of 31st July were produced by an employee of the Company who was in the vehicle. Since the goods were intercepted on 4-8-1990, the officers were of the view that the gate passes of the earlier date did not cover the consignment for the appellant. Therefore show cause notice was issued. After considering the cause shown and hearing the assessee, the Collector ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. One lakh. He confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty of Rs. One lakh.2. Shri Swaminathan for the appellant straightaway says that the entries in the RG 1 register with regard to the clearances of these goods were made on 31st July and that the gate passes were also issued on that date but the g...
Uttam Chand Sunder Lal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC313Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of Order No. 611/93-BCH, dated 18-10-1993 of Collector of Customs(Appeals).2. The appellants imported a consignment of shelled almond Kernels and sought assessment and clearance claiming classification under Customs Tariff Heading 0802.12 which covers, "other nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled almonds. Customs authorities, however, held such almonds which were Honey Roasted Almonds, Smokehouse Almonds, Sour Cream and Onion Almonds, Chilli with Lemon Almonds, Onion Garlic Almonds, etc. is classified under Customs Tariff Heading No. 2008.99.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Ld. Advocate submits that Chapter 8 is specific to these nuts. The Explanatory Notes also indicate that this Chapter covers fruits, nuts, etc., which may be fresh, frozen or dried. Chapter 20 on the other hand relates to preparations of vegetables, fruits, nuts or other parts of plants. Considering that their products fall specifically under Heading 0802.12 as shelled al...
Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT209TriDel
1. By this appeal, the appellants have assailed the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise when the case was remanded to him for passing a speaking order.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of yarn under Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants imported fibre and used this fibre for manufacture of yarn under the provision of Rule 191B. On a visit to the factory premises, the officers found a shortage of fibre and alleged that there was removal of the fibre. However, the appellants paid the amount of duty before issue of show-cause notice. The Department issued a show-cause notice and adjudicated the case. The Collector, in his adjudication order, imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1.0 lac.3. Shri K.K. Anand, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that he is pressing only for the issue of imposition of penalty and is not pressing the point on demand of duty which has already been paid b...
Krishna and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 2003(159)ELT32(Del)
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the Order No. 102A of 1977, dated June 18, 1977, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of India whereby the confiscation of consignment of 48 cases of ball bearings of which clearance was sought against Bill of Entry No. H.1118/16, dated November 16, 1973, was rejected by the Customs authorities. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the responder its to refund the fine of Rs. 44,800/- paid by it for redeeming the imported goods, and for refund of personal penalty of Rs. 12,800/- imposed on it under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. An import license dated January 10, 1972, for a value of Rs. 5 lakhs was issued in favor of M/s. Project Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., one of the canalising agencies. Against the aforesaid import license with letter of authority issued in favor of the petitioner to import non-restricted type of Ball, Roller and Taper Roller Bearings and componen...
Navgujarat Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT450TriDel
1. The short point is to be considered in this appeal is whether profit of supplier who supplied the raw-materials is to be included in the assessable value of the assessee. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polyethylene coated substrates. In some cases they manufacture polyethylene coated substrates for customers who provide some or all the raw-materials, such as mapitho paper and board. The case of the Department is that the appellants have to pay duty not only on the cost of raw-materials supplied by the customers but inclusive of job charges and some percentage of profit which would have earned by the customers in respect of such material which they have supplied to the appellants. The case of the appellants is that job charges is inclusive [in] their profit and hence further adding profit of supplier does not arise in determining the assessable value. This contention was not accepted by the Department. Shri G.D. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »