Delhi Court May 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.
Orient Steel and Industries Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC193Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Orient Steel & Industries Ltd. being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 14-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The matter relates to the excisability of the products like Buffer Casing, Buffer Plunger, Pivot Top, Pivot Bottom, Loco Plunger, Loco Casing, C.B. Couplers and Components. The issue for consideration is whether these products are dutiable under Item No. 68 after initially the duty had been paid under Item No. 25(16)(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The appellants had contested that they are engaged in the manufacture of castings and the process undertaken by them were incidental and ancillary to the process of casting. The Revenue had taken the view that after casting and after discharging that stage duty, the goods were further processed to make them identifiable parts for use by Railways. According to the Revenue two stage duty is payable : first at the casting stage under Item No....
Buta Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ668
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Shri Buta Singh was a member of the Lok Sabha from December 31, 1984 to November 27, 1989 and the Minister of Home Affairs in the Government of India from May 12, 1986 to December 2, 1989. On March 4, 1995 by the orders of a Superintendent of Police Cbi Spe Acu (vi) New Delhi a case was registered against him and others under sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under section 56 read with section 8 of FerroAhalmed1973. Later charge sheet No.l6 dated February 22, 1996 was filed by the Cbi before the Court of the Special Judge Delhi. It was against Shri Buta Singh. On March 8, 1996, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of 'the offences complained against' and issued summons. The relevant portion of the order runs as under: 'I have gone through the charge sheets, documents and other materials placed on record. After going through the record, I find that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against all the accused and as such I ta...
J.C. Khosia Vs. Khosla Medical Institute and Research Society Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)109; 1996(37)DRJ654
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) This is plaintiffs application under order 39 Rule 2-A Cpc, for proceedings against respondents Nos.1 and 2, who were defendant Nos. 2 and 4 in the suit, and against respondent Nos.3,4 and 5, who have been imp leaded in the present application, for disobedience of the injunction granted on 22-6-1994.(2) The plaintiff had filed a suit for decree of declaration, claiming that the suit property was a public trust property. In the event, leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been refused and the plaint was rejected. However, the plaintiff alleges violation of the restraint order passed on 22.6.94. The said order reads as under:- I.A.6386/94Notice. In the meantime, the respondents are restrained from transferring or alienating or disposing of or creating any third party interest in Khosla Hospital, Shalimar Bagh,West Delhi. Order 39, Rule 3 be complied with. DASTI.(3) The plaintiffs case may he briefly slated. The plaintiff claims that the responden...
Swastik Metals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT196TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held: "I have carefully gone through the case and the written/oral submissions. In this case the respondents have availed Modvat credit on rejected goods (slugs) received back from the consignees. It has been admitted that the inputs for slags is aluminium ingots and the goods returned by the buyers were defective slags only which is significantly finished product of the respondents. No. D-3 is stated to have been filed for the rejected goods. Under the Modvat Rules the defective/rejects goods can be returned to the original manufacturer in two situations, in the first case in case the Modvat credit has been taken by the buyer, the same can be cleared either under rule 57F(2) [now Rule 57F(2)] or under Rule 57F(1)(ii) and the same will be received by the original manufacturer under Rule 173H and cannot be considered as inputs of the respondents as the same were cleare...
Doodhaganga K. Sahakari Sakkar Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT411TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the finding of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the benefit of Clause 3(i) of Notification No.257/76, dated 30th September, 1976 was not available to the appellants as the factory was not in existence for the preceding five years.2. Shri Rohit Tandon, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the existence of the factory for all the five years was not required. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 866 (Para 5). He submitted that this decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was followed by the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise v. Marathwada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 614. Ld.Counsel submitted that it has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that for the purpose of this notification it was not necessary that the factory should have been in existence for al...
Kedar Exports Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT284TriDel
1. This Appeal is directed against the order-in-original 17/CE/86, dated 5-2-1987 of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh.2. The Appellants are engaged in manufacturing what they claimed to be studs specifically designed and exclusively used in the manufacture of Diesel Engines. They claimed classification of these goods under Tariff Item No. 68. During the relevant period the value of the clearances did not exceed exemption limit for small scale industries relating to goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68. Appellants cleared such goods at nil rate of duty by availing exemption under notification issued from time to time tinder Tariff Item No. 68.3. Department, however, claimed that the goods were classifiable as nuts and bolts under Tariff Item No. 52. On initiation of proceedings, Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 79,883.62 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. He also appropriated an amount of Rs. 8,000/- towards the goods valued at Rs. 2...
Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT206TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd., being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 16-10-1985 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The matter relates to the admissibility of the distribution discount, which was given by M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (CG). The appellants and M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. were related persons and the assessments were made on the basis of the prices charged by M/s. CG from their wholesale buyers. The Asstt. Collector had disallowed the distribution discount on the basis that it was not allowed for the purpose of the first wholesale but for the purpose of further sale to retailers by the distribution oriented dealers. The ld. Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Madras, had rejected the appeal of the appellants on the ground that it was not a permissible deduction under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act and that although the appellants call this deduction as a discount, it is not a discount but ac...
Amar Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3848
Mohd. Shamim, J. 1. These are two appeals bearing Nos. 191/92 and 199/92 preferred by Amar Singh and Ram Singh, real brothers, convicts/ appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants for the sake of convenience) against the judgment and order dated September 19, 1992 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge whereby he found them guilty under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In case of default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo RI for six months each. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of their failure to clear the fine they were further directed to undergo RI for six months each. The two appeals are being taken up together as they arise out of the same judgment and order. 2. The case of the prosecution as adumbrated in...
Madan Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT154; (1996)114PLR3
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 29th March, 1996 of the respondent No. 3 debarring the petitioners from submitting tenders for the period of three months with effect from 29th March, 1996. This order shall also govern the disposal of the Writ Petition Nos. 1749 to 1762 of 1996 as the petitions raise common questions of facts and law. (2) Brief facts leading to filing of these petitions are that the petitioners were enlisted as Contractors in the Irrigation and Flood Control Deptt. of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and became eligible to submit tenders in any of the division of I & F. The respondent No. 3 arbitrarily and wrongfully desisted the petitioners from submitting tenders for a period of three months with effect from 29.3.96 vide Memorandum dated 29th March, 1996 (at page 16 of the paper book) and that too without giving of an opportunity to be heard. It is contended that the impugned order is vocative of t...
thermoking Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)165; 64(1996)DLT12; 1996(38)DRJ480
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a petition whereby the petitioner challanges the notice dated 28th of July 1992 issued by Shri Sidharth Kak, Collector Central Excise, New Delhi requiring to show cause why duty specified therein should not be demanded from it under the provisions of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (for short 'the Rules') and under Section 9(2) read with Section 11(a) of the Central Excise Act and Salt Act 1944 (for short the 'Act') for the period 1988-89 and 1991-92, why seized goods valued at Rs. l,89,630.00 be not confiscated under Rules 226 and/or Rule 173 (o) (i) of the Rules; why penalty should not be imposed under Rules 173 (o) (i), 52 (a) 210 and 226 of the 'Rules', why land building and machinery used in connection with production storage, removal or disposal of excisable goods be not confiscated under Rule 173 (o)(ii) of the Rules, why security furnished by the petitioner under Rule 192 be not forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Rule 196, etc...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »