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.
industrial Finance Corporation of India Vs. Sidda Syntex and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT602
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition by the auction purchaser - Hindustan Electro Graphites Limited. Briefly staling, the facts of the case are that a Company named Sidda Syntax Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'SSL') was availing of financial benefits from Industrial Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as IFC') and on Ssl failing to meet its obligations under the agreement for loan facilities, Ifc initiated proceedings under Section 30 of Industrial Finance Corporation Act for recovery of its dues which ran into several crores. The assets, i.e., the immovable property as also the plant and machinery both movable and immovable of the said Ssl were sought to be auctioned by an order dated 5.5.1987 passed by this Court. This Court had appointed a Receiver, who was to affect the sale of the property by inviting sealed tenders. He was given the liberty to enter into private negotiations with the various tenderers and other parties also with a view to obtain maximum price. The s...
Satya Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Gayatri Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT468
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by Mr. B.B. Chaudhary, Competent Authority (Slum), dated 28.9.1993. The Competent Authority granted permission to Smt. Gayatri Devi to file a petition for eviction of the petitioners from shop bearing No. 1974, Ward No. 16, Bank street, Pyare Lal Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5. (2) Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are mentioned here in below. Ram Pratap was a tenant in respect of the said shop in Karol Bagh at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 . After the death of Ram Pratap, the present petitioners have become the tenants under the respondent Mrs.Gayatri Devi by operation of law. Gayatri Devi wants to file an eviction petition against the petitioners. As the property is situated in a slum area, thereforee, the present petition has been preferred before the Competent Authority. (3) In this petition, it is stated that the petitioners who...
Rajinder Pal Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)586; 1996(38)DRJ668
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that order dated 8.1.1996 and 7.2.1996 curtailing the petitioner's tenure from 31.7.96 to 31.3.1996, and reaffirming the decision conveyed vide order dated 8.1.1996 turning down the representation of the petitioner be quashed. (2) The petitioner further prayed that the respondent be directed to allow the petitioner to complete his tenure up to 31.7.1996 with all consequential reliefs in terms of their office letter dated 9.9.1993. (3) It is submitted that the petitioner, prior to joining the office of respondent no.2, the National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology was working as a Senior Manager (Personnel and Wages) in the Steel Authority of India, New Delhi. The petitioner was offered the said post for a period of 3 years by respondent no.2 by a letter dated 24.6.1991. The petitioner accepted the appointment on 18.7.1991. (4) The petitioner has completed his tenure and by the letter dated 9.9.1991 the petitione...
Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Del)320
ORDERG. D. AGRAWAL, A. M. :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi, who confirmed penalty of Rs. 95,05,296 levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The AO had levied the penalty on following two points :(a) For furnishing of inaccurate particulars about the sale value of cylinders which had the effect of understatement of income to the extent of Rs. 37,44,795.(b) Bogus claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 37,69,273 on computers which were never owned, used and leased.3. The learned representatives of both the parties have made detailed submissions in respect of both the points separately. thereforee, we shall also consider both the above items separately.4. The facts of the case with regard to first item, i.e., sale value of cylinders, is as follows. The accounting year relevant to assessment year under consideration was from 1st Jan., 1987 to 31st March, 1989. The assessed prepared two P&L; A/c s - o...
Union of India Vs. Khazan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ471
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by the Union of India, preferred in connection with acquisition of land in village Qasoompur. By our order passed in R.F.A. 329 of 1981 (Union of India v. Sh. Hoshiar Singh & ors), on 8.3.1996, we have determined the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs.15,000.00 per bigha. The appeal of the Union of India is, thereforee, liable to be dismissed.(2) The respondents have also filed cross-objections, claiming enhancement in the market value from Rs.3,000.00 per bigha to Rs.15,000.00 per bigha.(3) The learned Additional District Judge in reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, had assessed the market value of the land in village Qasoompur in two categories - block 'A' at Rs.5,000.00 per bigha and block 'B' at Rs.3,000.00 per bigha. It appears that the land of the appellants falls in block 'B', which had been assessed at Rs.3,000.00 per bigha.(4) By our judgment passed in R.F.A. 329 of 1981, referred to above, ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Majestic Auto Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT350TriDel
1. The captioned appeals have been filed by the department on the ground that luggage carrier is not an essential accessory and therefore Modvat credit was not available on this.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The Rule 123 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 reads "no motor cycle which has provision for pillion rider shall be constructed without provision for a permanent hand grip on the side or behind the driver's seat." The appellant under this requirement of the Motor Vehicle Rules claimed that item described by them as luggage carrier was actually safety device therefore the respondents claimed that Modvat credit on it was admissible to them.The department alleged that it was not an essential item, but was an accessory and therefore cannot be termed as inputs therefore Modvat credit was not admissible to the respondents.3. Shri S.V. Arya, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of Sec...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sudesh Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT296TriDel
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal whereby the Collector (Appeals) held that the respondents were entitled for the Modvat credit.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Ring Forging, namely, Bearing Forging falling under Heading No. 7326 and availed the benefit of Modvat credit during the period 6/1992 to 8/1992 on the inputs namely Bars and Rods of other alloy steels. Since the same were not declared in the declaration filed by the respondents on 9-4-1991 in terms of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a show cause notice was issued to them to show cause as to why they should not be asked to reverse the said Modvat credit and after usual adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector directed the respondents to reverse the Modvat credit holding that the inputs were not declared in the declaration. Against that order of the Assistant Collector the respondents filed an appeal before the...
Jaipur Bottling Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT74TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of aerated waters falling under Chapter 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Modvat credit was admissible to the said goods during the period 1-3-1987 to 30-9-1987.They had claimed three refund claims as follows :- (1) claim for credit of Rs. 1,05,519.20 under Rule 57H on empty glass bottles held on stock on the date of filing the declaration vide their application dated 4-2-1988 which was not included in the first claim; (2) a claim filed on 19-2-1988 , under Rule 57H for an amount of Rs. 26,250/- representing a consignment of essence received in the factory on 4-3-1987; and (3) a claim filed on 6-12-1989 for transfer of an amount of Rs. 38,019.74 from RG 23 Part II (held under Rule 56A) and RG 23 A Part II (kept under Rule 57A).The claim were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur division. Their appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi was rejected by that authority with the observation that apart...
Avadh Rubber Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT382TriDel
1. The appeal by M/s. Avadh Rubber challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.7-CE/ALLD/93, dated 28-1-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad upholding the finding of the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-Original No. 20-Demand (183/90) of 1992 dated 29-6-1992 that they were not entitled to avail Modvat Credit of Rs. 39,550/- on 56.500 M.Tonnes of Hot Rolled Coils. It was held that the said material had neither been received under proper duty paying documents nor accounted for in their RG23A Part I Register.2. Heard Shri M.P. Dev Nath, learned counsel and Shri D.S. Malik, learned Departmental Representative and perused the record.3. One of the grounds on which the decision has been taken by the Collector (Appeals) for disallowing the credit in question is that the challans issued by Steel Authority of India against which the inputs in question are claimed to have been received by the appellants described the goods as HR Coils while the appellants' case is that they were acco...
Mumal Marbles Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT289TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the order of the Collector (Appeals) in which the Collector (Appeals) imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) and allowed the appellants to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/-.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of marble tiles. The Central Excise Officers visited their factory, they found certain stocks much in excess of the recorded balance. The lower authorities, therefore, confiscated excess stocks and imposed a personal penalty also. When the case was called none appeared for the appellants. However, there is request for deciding the case on merits.3. Shri R.A. Sheikh, learned JDR submitted that as the stock if marble tiles was required to be recorded in RG 1 register and same was not done, the lower authorities have rightly confiscated the excess goods and have justifiable imposed a personal penalty.4. Heard the submission...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »