Delhi Court March 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.
Sunshine Metal and Alloys Inds. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT740TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 15-9-1986 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported 50 m.t. Electrolytic Copper Wire-bars having 99.90% Minimum purity from M/s. Metdist Ltd. U.K. vide their Contract No. 4A 1707, dated 24-10-1984. The foreign supplier shipped two consignments of 25 M.T. which were received on 19-1-1985 and in February, 1985. The Customs authorities loaded the declared invoice value of Stg. 1,075.00 per M.T. to Stg. 1123/- per M.T. for assessment purposes, on the ground that the leading is required to be done to maintain uniformity. The Assistant Collector rejected the value based on the contract under Section 14(1 )(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the deemed value of copper wire-bars at the time of place of importation based on several actual imports of these goods is 1123/- per M.T. and therefore, this has been treated as the deemed value of goods at which the goods are ordinarily sold at the time and place of imp...
Cimmco Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT74TriDel
1. The Assistant Collector passed an order demanding differential duty on BWT-A type wagons and BCN type wagons manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the period from 20-11-1986 to 28-2-1991. He also indicated that the demand for the period from 1-3-1986 to 19-11-1986 covered by the show cause notice was not being decided in view of the instructions of the Ministry. The Collector (Appeals) having dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, the present appeal is filed. We have heard both sides.2. Appellant manufactures railway wagons. The appellant claims to be essentially a pre-fabricator. Inputs procured by the appellant as well as certain specific items of inputs supplied by the Railways are used in the manufacture or fabrication of wagons. Wagons became chargeable to duty only with effect from 1-3-1975 under TI 68 of the Tariff. From 1-3-1975 to 1-8-1986 assessable value was to be determined on the basis of invoice price under Notification No. 120/75. With effect from 1-8...
islam-ud-dIn Alias Islamu Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2613
Mohd. Shamim, J. 1. Convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience) has approached this Court through the present appeal with a request for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated September 29, 1992 whereby the learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- In case of failure to clear the fine the appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. It would be necessary to state in brief the facts which led to the present appeal in order to fully and properly appreciate the points raised by the appellant. The facts as adumbrated in the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., F.I.R. and in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows : that Constable Sube Singh (PW 2) was posted at P.S. Nangloi during the intervening night of 1st/2nd July 1988. He was on emergency duty along...
Prem Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3604
1. Prem Singh, petitioner herein was apprehended on 6th March, 1990 by the Investigating Officer, S.I. Durga Prasad of Police Station Town Hall. Prosecution case is based on secret information received by S.I. Durga Prasad informing therein that a person sitting near Hardayal Municipal Chamber possessed smack. On receipt of this information, S.I. Durga Prasad arranged a raiding party consisting of Constables Ramesh Kumar and Raj Kumar and one Santosh Kumar a public independent witness. The secret informer pointed towards the appellant to be that person. Pursuance of which appellant was apprehended. Before searching him option was given to be searched either before Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, but appellant declined. Notice under S. 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the 'Act') was served. S.H.O. in the meantime also came at the spot. It is the case of the prosecution that from the right side pocket of appellant's pant a match box 'Homelight' conta...
Exports Unlimited Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ109
ORDERS which decide matters) (which work of moment) (serious injustice) (to the party Or ) AND(concerned.) (affect vital and valuable ) (rights of the parties ) 6.12Intermediary or interlocutory judgment of category (iii)(b) not satisfying the test above said would have the following fate :- 'SUCH orders are purely interlocutory and cannot constitute judgments because it will always be open to the aggrieved party to make a grievance of the order passed against the party concerned in the appeal against the final judgment passed by the trial judge.' (Para 114) 6.13Their Lordships have illustrated the above proposition by specifically giving (vide para 120), the following illustrations of interlocutory orders which may be treated as judgments :- '(1)An order granting leave to amend the plaint by introducing a new cause of action which completely alters the nature of the suit and takes away a vested right of limitation or any other valuable right accrued to the defendant. (2) An order reje...
Sandhya Bhalla Vs. Delhi Productivity Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)109; 1997(41)DRJ472
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The respondent Delhi Productivity Council by the order dated 21.4.1994 has offered a teaching post to the petitioner on a trial basis w.e.f. 1.7.1996 for six months. The order dated 21.4.1994 reads as under: Dr. (Mrs.) Sandhya Bhalla, B-127, Anand Vihar, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092. Ref.: Your interview and discussion with the Selection Committee on 12.4.94 Madam, The Selection Committee is pleased to offer you a teaching assignment to teach Pgdba students on a trial basis with effect from 1st July, 1994 for six months. It will be reviewed thereafter for regular appointment. The consolidated emoluments during trial period will be Rs.4,000.00 . The assignment can be terminated at any time. You should send your acceptance by 15th Mary, 1994 to the undersigned. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, sd/- - (B.C. Jaiswal) Administrative Officer (2) The petitioner accepted the offer vide her acceptance letter dated 26.4.1994. The said acceptance letter reads as under: Shri...
Prem Prashad Juneja Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)69; 1996(37)DRJ63
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) By this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of a notice dated 23.3.1992 (Annexure-4), issued by the Assistant Assessor & Collector Mcd under Section 126(l)(3) of the Dmc Act, 1957 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the order of assessment dated 22.2.1995 (Annexure-6) made pursuant to the notice (Annexure-4).(2) The petitioner owns a property bearing No. B- 61, Soami Nagar, New Delhi. It appears that the property was previously assessed at a rateable value of Rs. 4860.00 . The impugned notice (Annexure-4) was issued proposing a rateable value of Rs. 3,70,580.00 for the years 1988-89 to 1991-92. The petitioner appears to have given a response to the notice submitting that the notice did not disclose how and why the rateable value was proposed to be enhanced and unless that was done, a revision of rateable value to the higher side was not permissible made. It was also stated that the premises were self-occ...
Jagdish Singh Vs. Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)539; 1996(37)DRJ107
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is a petition directed against an order dated 23.2.1993 passed by the Registrar Coop.Societies, Delhi declaring the membership of the petitioner ceased from two cooperative housing societies consequent to his having incurred disqualification under Rule 25 (l)(c) and (2) of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973, the order having been maintained by the Lt. Governor intervision decided on 25.8.93. (2) The petitioner was enrolled as a member of Dronacharya Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter - Society-D, for short) on 9.8.90. Thereafter he also got himself enrolled as a member of Tribal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter - Society-T, for short) on 29.11.83. He subsequently resigned from Society-T on 7.6.91. It is not disputed that the petitioner had continued torn remain member of the two cooperative housing societies simultaneously between 29.11.83 and 7.6.91. (3) The petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Rule 25 requiri...
Collector of Customs Vs. Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT686TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Collector's order classifying "bellows" under Heading 90.24(1) as against the classification made by the original authority under Heading 83.01/15(2) of the CTA, 1975.2. Learned Departmental Representative reiterating the grounds given in the appeal memorandum claimed that the impugned goods could not be deemed to be the part of the machine. The same were specifically covered by Heading 83.08. On this ground it was claimed that the order of the Collector be set aside and the original order be restored.3. Advocate Shri S.K. Sharda appearing for the respondents claimed that the impugned goods are not ordinary bellows but is a metallic transducer designed to sensed pressure and to transmit the sensed pressure to actuate the control system. These are specifically designed for use solely in the control instrumentation equipment. On this ground their classification under Heading 90.24(1) was correct. These goods were manufactured as per the...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC273Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-3-1987 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The issue for determination is classification of the products claimed to be Mosaic tiles and admissibility or otherwise of such products to exemption of Notification No. 55/86, dated 10th Feb., 1986 effective from 20th February, 1986.3. Arguing for the Revenue Ld. D.R. submits that Collector (Appeals) has erred in holding the products as Mosaic tiles. He has ignored the vital distinction between Chapter 68 and Chapter 69 while arriving at a finding that the goods are classifiable under Chapter 68.07.00. HSN explanatory notes clearly indicate that firing after shaping is essential distinction between goods of Chapter 69 and the minerals or stones classifiable under Chapter 68 which are generally not fired.Assistant Collector referring to the letter of the Respondents dated 2-6-1986 correctly concluded that the products were fired after they were pressed i.e. shapped and lead...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »