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.
Kamal Kishore Vs. S.D. Mathur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi443
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On a complaint made by a public servant relating to commission of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called the Act), is the Metropolitan Magistrate bound to examine the complainant and the witnesses before passing an order of committal Whereas the petitioner says that the Metropolitan Magistrate is bound to. as per the respondent there is no such requirement. The question arises in the circumstances detailed below. (2) We are told that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, West Bengal intercepted a lorry allegedly carrying machinery items from Delhi to Calcutta meant for export to Saudi Arabia and U. K. and on examination of the consignment, recovered there from 743 Kgs. of Hashish. This led to the arrest of the petitioner under section 29 read with section 21 of the Act. Later a complaint was filed by the respondent a public servant, under section 29 read...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bhagwati Metals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT743TriDel
1. The Revenue had filed a Reference Application with regard to the Tribunal's final decision No. A/1088/95-NB, dated 20-11-1995 wherein the Tribunal had held that even during the period when no time limit was prescribed under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the time limit as prescribed in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was to be read in the provisions of Rule 57-I. The Revenue had stated that Rules 57-I as it existed prior to its amendment w.e.f.6-10-1988 did not have any specific time limit and that the Modvat credit wrongly taken could be collected back within a reasonable period of time. The Revenue had cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of Torrent Laboratories (P)Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 25 (Gujarat) wherein the Gujarat High Court had held that no time limit as such was prescribed under Rule 57-I of the Rules prior to the amendment of the Rule w.e.f. 6-10-1988.2. Under the Modvat Scheme, the duty paid on the inputs is ...
Sh. Chandra Parkash and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3443
ORDER1. Sh. Chander Prakash and others are aggrieved by the registration of FIR No. 204/94 under S. 406/498-A, I.P.C. against them by the Police of Police Station, Paharganj. They want the FIR registered against them to be quashed. Quashing of the FIR has been sought on the grounds that (i) Delhi Police has no jurisdiction to register this case; (2) that complaint under S. 406/498-A, IPC is barred by limitation; (3) on the basis of contents of FIR no case under S. 406/498-A, IPC has been made out and finally; (4) no mention of demand of dowry had been made in the petition for divorce filed by respondent No. 2, thereforee, the present complaint is an afterthought. Moreover, before leaving the matrimonial home she did not lodge any police report. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that complainant Smt. Rekha Thakur was married to petitioner No. 1 at Nazibabad, District Bijnaur, U.P. After marriage the parties resided at their matrimonial home at Mohalla Singhan, Kashipur, Distt. Nainit...
Collector of Customs Vs. Dr. Vijayalakshmi Acharya
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT512TriDel
1. The respondents herein imported a consignment of dental goods described in the invoice as body contoured hydraulic motor chair with programming system Mobile Cart Unit Exceed 7200. Originally the goods were assessed as dental chair under Heading 94.01 /04 of the CTA and Tariff Item 68 of the CET in the absence of split up value for the chair and various other goods. Subsequently the importer asked for reassessment under Heading 90.17/18 of the CTA as dental equipment and also produced split up value for the various items covered by the invoice. Accordingly, the dental chair was assessed under Heading 94.01/04 of the CTA at 100%+40% extending the benefit of central excise Notification 70/83. The surgeon chair was classified under 94.01/04 and item 40 of CET. The importers/respondent filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order reassessed hydraulic chair under Heading 90.16/18. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard Shri Mohamed AH, learned DR a...
Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT245TriDel
1. These appeals, directed against common Order-in-Original No. 42/1991 of Collector of Central Excise, were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.2. M/s. Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd., the first appellant, hereinafter referred to as SPPL, are engaged in the manufacture of, among others, eyebrow pencils, bindi pencils, eye-shadows, eye-liners, black lead general pencils, copying pencils, etc. It was alleged that SPPL were evading excise duty on "Eyebrow Pencils" by removing such pencil as Kumkum Pencils (Bindi Pencils) taking advantage of exemption claimed on Kumkum pencils. SPPL had entered into an agreement on 1-12-1984 with Lakme for manufacture and supply of 'eyebrow pencil' in the name of Lakme and accordingly were supplying eyebrow pencil in two sizes, medium and large, up to June, 1988 and thereafter, Kumkum pencils in the same brand name and in the same sizes and claiming exemption under Notification No. 235/86, dated 3-4-1986.2.1 M/s. SPPL were also ...
B. Arun Kumar and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT34TriDel
1. The two appeals are filed by the assessee and the Collector of Customs respectively. The cross-objections are filed by the Collector of Customs in the appeal filed by the assessee. The appeal was disposed of by the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal who transferred the cross-objection to Delhi Bench to be dealt with by the concerned Special Bench. That is how the cross-objection has survived. The Collector has filed the latter appeal precisely on the same grounds as those raised by him in the cross-objection in the former appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that neither the cross-objection nor the appeal filed by the Collector is maintainable. We have heard both sides.2. Chapter XV of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act) deals with the provisions relating to appeal, revision, reference and other related matters. Section 129A to 129C deal with the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. SubSection (1) of Section 129A enables any ...
L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT44TriDel
1. This appeal filed by M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd., the goods involved are cellulosic spun yarn containing non-cellulosic yarn. The appellants were availing of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 74/82, dated 28-2-1982, which provided an effective rate of basic duty of Rs. 6/- per kg. if in the cellulosic spun yarn the non-cellulosic content did not exceed 1/6th of the fibres content. This exemption notification was valid upto 28-2-1983. With effect from 1-3-1983, this exemption prescribing effective duty of Rs. 6/- per kg. was not applicable. At the same time, there was another Notification No. 75/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982, which provided a concessional rate of Rs. 9/- per kg. basic if in the cellulosic spun yarn, non-cellulosic fibre content was also there. There was no time limit built in the exemption notification No. 75/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. As per tariff description if in any yarn cellulosic fibre was predominant, it was a cellulosic spun ya...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Brooke Bond Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT136TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 147/87-(CBE), dated 13-7-1987 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. The issue relates to classification of residue obtained during the process of manufacture of instant, coffee which is sold by the respondents for being used for extracting oil.3. Arguing for the Revenue the DR submits that the solid effluent which is spent coffee is sold as waste product by the respondents to M/s.Agro Extracts, Bangalore who in turn extract oil and supply the same to soap industries as a raw material. In other words, the solid effluent is utilised in other industries as a raw material. It is liable to duty under Tariff Heading 0901.90 which covers all varieties of coffee and attracts duty @ 12%. The respondents, however, neither classified the spent coffee in their classification list filed on 28-2-1986 and 12-3-1986 nor had they been paying duty on this. Since Tariff Heading 0901 covers all varieties of coffee, the spent coffee which contai...
Eastend Paper Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT446TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Eastend Paper Industries, Calcutta, the point for our consideration is whether ' while assessing the papers to central excise duty and determining its value, the duty of the wrapping paper, which is used for wrapping the papers, has to be included for determining the assessable value of the finished paper so cleared. The appellants have contended that as the wrapping paper was already duty paid, inclusion of the duty in the value of the paper so wrapped will amount to double levy. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta has affirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector, who had held that the refund claim of the assessee with regard to the excess duty of wrapping paper being used as primary packing of another product was not maintainable.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 12-4-1996 when Shri P.K. Jain, SDR appeared for the Revenue. No one is present for the appellants. A notice of today's hearing had been issued to them as early as on 31-1-...
Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT85TriDel
1. By Stay order No. 170/95-A, dated 8-9-1995, appellant-applicant was required to deposit Rs. 1,58,143.00 within eight weeks under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. When the case came up on 9-11-1995, compliance had not been reported and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Appellant has filed the present ROA stating that even on 12-10-1995 the appellant had debited the amount in RG 23C Part II and there was only omission to bring this to the notice of the Tribunal.When asked how debiting the amount in RG 23C Part II would amount to compliance of the direction to make deposit, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the same was done on an erroneous understanding of the order and further stated that to show the bonafides of the appellant, the appellant is prepared to make the deposit in four weeks.We would like to test the bonafides of the appellant. Call on 15-5-1996....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »