Delhi Court April 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.
Jamila Begum Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT395; 1996(37)DRJ512
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This Judgment was not pronounced on 25.3.1996 as indicated in our earlier order but is being pronounced now.(2) This is a writ petition for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities,1974 (hereinafter called the COFEPOSA) The detention order was passed after three tea packages concealed in the baggage revealed Indian and foreign currency of Rs. 11,39,862 etc. The petitioner was going to Dubai. ' The petitioner stated in her statement under Section 108 of the Customs A ct, 1962 that she was a graduate.(3) Though the detention order was passed on 4.12.1992, the detention could be effected only on 27.9.1995. The delay,however, is not questioned before us. (4) The point now pressed is the following. It relates to the delay in the disposal of representation dated 6.10.1995 to the 1st respondent (Union of India) and 2nd respondent (Lt. Govern...
Vikas Pahwa Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)549; 63(1996)DLT2; 1996(37)DRJ443; 1996RLR275
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) On April 3, 1989 M/s. Wootz Steels Pvt. Ltd. was found to be consuming electricity from the electric meters which were giving defective reading and on which the seals were found to be fictitious. This led to the registration of a case, subsequent investigation and ultimate challenging of the accused. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance, summoned the accused and then framed a charge under section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is this order which the accused had found unpalatable. Hence this petition.(2) MR.GANDHI, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been mercifully brief. To my pleasant surprise so also has been the counsel for the respondents. Mr.Gandhi has drawn my attention to section 49A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and since his argument revolves around that provision let me take the liberty of reproducing it. This is how it runs: '49-A.Offence by companies (1)If the person c...
Paman Lal Thakur Vs. Bhagwan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)541; 62(1996)DLT459; 1996RLR303
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated March 15, 1984 of Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The said judgment modified the order dated 7th December, 1983 passed by the Rent Controller in proceedings under Section 14(l)(k) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent Bhagwan Singh has since expired and is now represented by his legal heirs. (2) Thebrieffactsarethatappellantpamanlal filed petition foreviction against the respondent with respect to the suit property as referred to in the petition for eviction. The grounds of eviction were based on the provisions under Clauses (a) and (k) of the proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act. The petition was contested and preliminary objection was taken that no notice terminating the contractual tenancy had been served. It was alleged that the appellant-landlord had deprived the respondent of the user of the tenanted premises and that the room was also let out to the...
Collector of Customs Vs. Tara Art Printers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT586TriDel
1. The respondents imported one second hand Solna 425 Four Colour offset printing machine with complete accessories from Sweden and filed Bill of Entry No. 67, dated 1-3-1988 declaring the value of Rs. 5,97,345/- corresponding to invoice price of 2,70,000 Swedish Kroner SK, for short). The declared value was not accepted by the Custom House because of imports of similar machines having been noticed at higher prices. The respondents made their submissions questioning the proposed enhancement of the assessable value. The Deputy Collector of Customs heard their representative and passed his order dated 23-5-1988, enhancing the value to Rs. 8.62 lakhs CIF and also holding that the benefit of Exemption Notification 29/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 was not admissible. Their appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was allowed by that authority in respect of valuation but rejected on the question of exemption notification. Aggrieved with the decision on valuation which went in favour of the re...
Kanpur Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT482TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur imposed penalty of Rs. 40,00,000.00 on the appellant under Rules 9(2), 52A, 209 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for Short, the Rules). The allegations which led to the imposition of penalty relate to clandestine removal of cigarettes manufactured by the appellant without payment of excise duty during the period 8-5-1985 to 23-7-1985.The Department was alerted when the income-tax authorities who raided the residence of an ex-Director of the appellant and recovered certain production slips indicating shift-wise and date-wise production of cigarettes and passed on photo copies of these documents to the Excise Department. Investigation showed large scale suppression of manufactured cigarettes by non-accounting in RG-I Register. Notice dated 3-4-1992 was issued to the appellant to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. The notice was resisted but finally the Collector passed the impugned order imposing pena...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Atul Drugs House
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT495TriDel
1. These Revenue appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.2. Arguing for the Revenue the Ld. DR submits that the respondents manufactured PVC containers out of PVC lay flat tubings and claimed exemption under Notification No. 132/86. This Notification exempts articles of plastics made from plastic material falling under Headings 39.01 to 39.15 on which duty of excise or additional duty of customs has been paid. No evidence has been produced to indicate that the lay flat tubings from which PVC containers are made have been manufactured out of duty paid PVC resins. Exemption cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the onus to prove that the respondents were entitled to exemption were clearly on the assessee.3. Arguing for the respondents the Ld. Advocate submits that in Order-in-Original itself the Assistant Collector has recorded at internal page 4 of his order that PVC lay flat tubings were purchased ...
Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT355TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) had rejected the refund claim of the appellants on the ground that the refund claim was time-barred.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 23A and now under Chapter No. 70 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants submitted two refund claims. Refund claim for Rs. 22,50,220.50 was sent on 19th August, 1985 and was received on 22nd August, 1985. The appellants sent another refund claim for Rs. 2,65,03,391 on 12-9-1985 which was received on 16-9-1985. These two refund claims were submitted by the appellants on the ground that duty was based on per sq. metre under Notification No. 82/82, dated 28-2-1982. However, the appellants paid duty on fraction of a sq. metre and therefore, this payment on the fraction of sq. metre became refundable. Show-cause notice was issued on 10th December, 1985 asking appellants to s...
Chandan Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT534TriDel
1. Appellant and appellant's representative absent. It appears, Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate handed over to Central Registry at 10.50 A.M. today a letter dated 8-4-1996 stating that the appellant had sent a Vakalatnama which was received on 8-4-1996 and the appellant desired that the advocate should seek adjournment for another date so that the appellant may also be present on the next date and the proprietor of the appellant was not feeling well. We do not think these grounds are sufficient for adjournment, particularly in an old case. The Advocate did not care to remain present and move the application for adjournment himself....
Sarabhai M. Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT342TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda. The Collector in his order concluded that Crude Sorbitol Captively consumed in continuous process by the appellants is marketed and excisable goods and thus chargeable to duty under Heading 38.23 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Collector however dropped the entire demand holding that the demand was time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C). In the manufacture of Ascorbic Acid Crude Sorbitol comes into existence as intermediate product which is captively consumed for further manufacture of Vitamin C. It was alleged that Crude Sorbitol was cleared without payment of duty during the period 2-4-1986 to 31-5-1987. Ascorbic Acid was exempt under Notification 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 and therefore Crude Sorbitol was liable to pay du...
Tungabhadra Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT91TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 104/87, dated 10-8-1988 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad/vide their Classification List dated 23-3-1986, the appellants have claimed partial exemption of duty on Vegetable Products (VP) under Notification No. 115/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. They exercised their option indicating the percentage of cotton seed oil in the manufacture of VP on monthly basis. As per this option, the appellants could reduce @ Rs. 1000/- P.M.T. the duty from the total duty payable at 10% of the value per metric tonne of VP cleared on or after 1-3-1986.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that by a Show Cause Notice issued on 7-1-1988 for the period March, 1986, the appellants were asked to pay duty on the ground that vegetable products produced before the date of issue of Notification are not eligible for rebate and that exemption can be availed only prospectively. The ld.Advocate submitted that in the first place th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »