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.
M.V. Krishnaswamy Vs. University Grants Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)607; 1996(38)DRJ139
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari and quo warrants for quashing the selection and appointment of respondents No. 2 to 4 for the post of Education Officer as null and void being in violation of the essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules as well as the qualification fixed at the time of short listing of the candidates for interview.(2) The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ for quashing the seniority list dated 12.5.1994 in respect of Education Officer and consequent seniority list dated 17.5.1994.(3) According to the petitioner, respondents No. 2 to 4 did not have the basic qualification for appointment to the post of Education Officer. Respondent No. 1, University Grants Commission issued an advertisement by which applications were invited for three posts of Education Officer. In the advertisement, essential qua...
Rajbir Singh Vs. Mohan Lal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)551; 62(1996)DLT451; 1996(37)DRJ548
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 15, 1993 passed by Shri K.S.Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which inter-alia upheld the order passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller striking out the defense of the appellant under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for not making payment/deposit in compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Filed petition for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent which was being contested by the appellant. On April 1, 1991 respondent filed an application on the allegations that an order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed against the appellant on 2nd November, 1989 for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.250.00 per month with effect from March 1, 1987. On the application filed for withdrawal of rent it was reported that the appellant deposited only a sum of Rs.8250.00 by way...
All India New Bank of India Employees Federation Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1125Del
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This petitioner has been filed by the All India New Bank of India Employees Federation through its General Secretary C/o Punjab National Bank, L-Block Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001. In this petition it is prayed that respondent No. l be directed to constitute/appoint an independent/outside specialised agency for holding promotion process in the Punjab National Bank. It is also prayed that respondent No. 1, be directed to constitute an independent committee/appointing outside agency for -screening, reviewing and initiating disciplinary action likely to be initiated against the employees of the erstwhile New Bank of India.2. It is also prayed that respondent No. l be: directed to constitute an independent agency or appoint an outside agency for reviewing of disciplinary action taken against the employees /officers of erstwhile New Bank of India by respondents No. 2 and 3 after amalgamation of the two banks on September 4, 1993. It is mentioned in the petition t...
K.L. Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT398TriDel
1. In both these appeals benefit of concessional duty under exemption Notification No. 347/86 and 174/92 has been denied on the ground that end use certificate as required in the Notification was not submitted within the stipulated time.2. Arguing for the Appellants the Ld. Counsel submits that in both cases end use certificates were subsequently submitted. But these were admittedly not submitted within the time as stipulated in the bond executed in terms of the Notification at the time goods were cleared from Customs House at concessional rate of duty. The Ld. D.R. while reiterating the departmental arguments concedes that the delay in such a case can be condoned since the time was stipulated only [in] the Bond.3. Considered. We find that Notification Nos. 174/92 and 347/86 contain condition that importer shall, by execution of a bond bind him himself to pay on demand if such goods as are not shown to satisfaction of Assistant Collector as having been used for the purpose for which t...
Commissioner, Central Excise Vs. Hi-tech Pipes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT302TriDel
1. This appeal from Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 20-10-1995. The short facts relating to the issue of this order are as follows :- M/s. Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. were manufacturing black steel pipes and tubes from H.R. Coils. Officers on their visit to the factory premises on 28-6-1994 detected shortages in finished goods as well as raw materials. The production of such tubes was not recorded in the RG 1 Register on 27-6-1994. After making investigations the assessees were issued a show cause notice. After according opportunity for the assessee to be heard, the original authority confirmed demand of Rs. 51,344.45 on the shortages in the finished goods, disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 94,110.18 on the raw materials found short in stock and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessees. Against this order, the assessees filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned Order set aside the orders confirming the duty demanded and for rev...
Khaitan Electrical Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT530TriDel
1. The issue for determination before me in this appeal is whether the provision of Section 11B as amended, can be interpreted in a manner which will render the provision of Rule 9B nugatory.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ceiling fans, portable fans, cooler products, pumps, and domestic electrical appliances. The appellants filed price lists and claimed deduction on account of freight and insurance charges. The price lists were approved provisionally during the relevant period. The price lists claiming deduction of freight and insurance on equalised basis during the year 1991-92 were approved finally on 21-9-1992.Pursuant to this order of finalisation, the appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,30,087.88. The Asstt. Collector reduced the amount of claim to Rs. 41,687.70 and asked them to show cause as to why the refund claim of Rs. 41,678.70 should not be rejected as being time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. After hearing th...
Ashoka Rubber Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT127TriDel
1. This Appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 6/87, dated 31-12-1986 of Collector of Central Excise, Cochin.2. Duty of Rs. 2,02,860/- has been confirmed as payable by the Appellants on the ground that they do not fulfil the condition clause 2 of the Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 since the goods of masticated rubber and the tread rubber manufactured during the previous year exceeded the exemption limit under clause 2 of the aforesaid notification.3. Arguing for the Appellants Ld. Counsel submits that masticated rubber is an intermediate product made from natural rubber and no process of manufacture such as would result in a taxable event, is involved. In their case no chemicals are added and simply by mastication natural rubber is converted into masticated rubber and identity between the two is not lost. In support of his contention he cites the case C.C.E., Cochin v. Ceakay Rubber Industries reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 491 (T) wherein Tribunal held that Masticated...
Tru Wheels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT730TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture excisable products, namely, front and rear wheel assemblies, knuckle steering, tools and implements in the manufacture of which they use materials, duty paid on which is being availed of as Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.Some of these products were being cleared by them free of duty under Chapter X Procedure. For the inputs used by them in the manufacture of the latter type of clearances, they had reversed the Modvat credit corresponding to the weight of the final product so cleared free of duty. The department had taken the stand that such reversal of credit should not be limited to the weight of the inputs contained in such final product but should extend to the whole of the weight of the inputs issued for the manufacture of such products. The Additional Collector passed his order dated 15-1-1992 demanding the duty corresponding to the amount of credit disallowed for the aforesaid reason which amounted to Rs. 96,908.66 and also...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nova Udyog Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC479
1. These are three appeals filed by the department with reference to the Modvat credit in respect of the items mentioned in the respective impugned orders. These three appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. When these matters came up for hearing none appeared on behalf of the respondents. I proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri Ram Saran, learned JDR for the Revenue.3. In this appeal, the appellants have filed declaration under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules; on 25.3.1994 for availing Modvat credit of duty on capital goods namely Foundry Flexes, Electric wire and cables and welding electrodes. Modvat credit has been denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that these items are not covered by the definition of Capital goods under Rule 57Q. On the other hand, Collector (Appeals) observed that foundry flexes and welding electrodes do not come under the explanation of capital goods as appended with Rule 57Q, whereas Electric Wires and cables are capita...
Collector of Customs Vs. Lalit Impex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT365TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay dated 11-2-1986. A notice for today's hearing was sent to the respondents and they have replied vide their letter dated 16-4-1996 stating inter alia that no personal hearing is necessary for he hearing of the appeal and the matter may be decided on the basis of the documents enclosed by them.2. We have, therefore, perused the case records and the documents filed by the respondents and heard the learned DR.3. Learned DR stated that it was a case of importation of a consignment of loud speakers. The goods were assessed under Tariff Item 33F(ii) of Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of additional duty.4. The importers subsequently filed application for refund on the ground that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and should be reassessed accordingly. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector but the appeal against this order was allowed by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »