Delhi Court July 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.
New Shorrock Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT151TriDel
1. Appellants are manufacturers of textile yarns and fabrics and liable to pay excise duty on manufactured products cleared by them. They were submitting monthly returns in form RT 12. It appears Superintendent purported to complete the assessment under RT 12 return, holding that differential duty of Rs. 75,373.07 has to be paid by the appellants.The appellants objected to this assessment before the Assistant Collector contending, inter alia, that the Superintendent could not have completed the assessment without a show cause notice. Evidently, appreciating the tenability of this contention, the Assistant Collector issued a notice alleging short payment of duty and requiring the appellants to show cause why the differential duty should not be demanded. The appellants objected to the notice on various grounds. The Assistant Collector overruled the objections and confirmed the demand of Rs. 75,373.07. This order as well as similar orders were challenged before the Collector (Appeals) wh...
Magpie Elechem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT91TriDel
1. In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The appellants Shri V. K. Dubey is represented by four legal heirs brought on record as per Misc. Order of the Tribunal in No. (sic), dated 13-2-1992.3. These appeals arise from the order-in-original No. 35/86 dated 22-12-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi ordering for confiscation of imported materials under Section III(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further he has granted an option to redeem the said goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-. He has also imposed penalty on Mr. Kailash Chand, Prop. M/s. Magpie Elechem Pvt.Ltd. of Rs. 5,00,000/- and on Shri V. K. Dubey penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- has been imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further he has ordered that upon M/s. Magpie Elechem Pvt. Ltd. electing to redeem the seized goods which are confiscated, the same will be cleared on payment of Custom...
Kanoria Sugar and Gen. Mfg. Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT522TriDel
1. The Single issue for consideration here is whether lubricant oils and greases which are used for the maintenance of machinery qualify as inputs for the purpose of Modvat Credit in the manufacture of sugar and molasses.2. Shri Rajesh Kumar, ld. Advocate, argued that the language of Rule 57A covers those inputs which are not only used in the manufacture but also those which are used in relation to the manufacture. The optimum utilisation of machinery is not possible without using lubricants and greases and in this way such lubricants and greases are used in relation to manufacture of sugar. He stated that judgment rendered in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal), the expression "in relation" has been analysed. It was held that any inputs used in processes which are preparatory in nature and anterior to the start of the manufacturing stream also contribute to the production and any materials used in such anterior ...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT753TriDel
1. By the present appeal the appellants have assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that electrically heated muffle furnace, ampere meter, volt meter and other measuring instruments and vacuum pump with electrical motor and accessories are not capital goods and therefore not eligible to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts of the case are the appellants are engaged in this case in the manufacture of dry cell batteries. During the process of manufacture of dry cell batteries the appellants carried out the process of testing at various stages with the help of various testing equipment/appliances etc. The department alleged that in view of the definition of capital goods appearing in the Explanation to Rule 57Q, the above referred 3 products are testing machines and measuring machines and therefore not eligible for Modvat benefit.3. Shri Swaminathan, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that electrically heated muffl...
Fly Wings Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT488; 1996(38)DRJ400
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner seeks quashing of an award dated 19.7.95 given by an arbitrator appointed under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. (2) The petitioner is a subscriber of telephone connection No-6875370 installed at the petitioner's office. It is aggrieved by 7 bills between 10th February, 1991 and 1st July, 1992 (both inclusive) which according to the petitioner contained false and highly exaggerated charges. Earlier an arbitrator had by his award dated 8.4.93 allowed relief of 40,000 calls to the petitioner. However, the award was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in view of an illegality going to the roof of the proceedings in as much as the arbitrator was appointed by Mtnl and not by Central Government which had vitiated the appointment itself. The Central Government appointed yet another arbitrator, Mr.K.L.Narula, Cao who has by award dated 19.7.95 dismissed the dispute raised oy the petitioner. (3) According to the petitioner, the award is vi...
Ahmad Sayeed Vs. Mohd. Musslin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)963; 1996(38)DRJ517
Vijender Jain, J.(1) Vide my order dt.l2.12.95, I have sentenced contemnors 1 to 3 to pay fine of Rs.2000.00 , failing which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. I have been told that fine has been paid by the contemnors. On that date Ms.Anju Lal appeared for respondent no.6 and counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply to the application filed by respondent no.6, which is an application u/S 151 read with Order Vii, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. (2) MR.G.N. Aggarwal, now appearing for respondent no.6 has contended that no notice of contempt was issued to respondent no.6 as per order of this Court dt.l8.9.92 and thereforee, respondent no.6 is not a party in the contempt proceedings. He has also contended that no undertaking of any nature whatsoever, was given by respondent no.6 regarding tenanted premises. In support of his arguments, Mr.Aggarwal has relied up : 1979CriLJ952 to contend that respondent no.6 is not bound by the undertaking, ...
Kranti Arora Vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)87; 70(1997)DLT120; 1996(39)DRJ635; 1996RLR396
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This petition has been filed for (i) quashing the impugned order dated 24th May 1993 dismissing petitioner's appeal under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, assessing flat No. 12, having an area of 1148 sq. ft. in Gauri Apartment, 3-4 South End Lane, New Delhi at annual value of Rs-3,72,627 less 10% calculated on the basis of comparable market rent; and (ii) for directing the respondent to assess the property on the basis of cost of construction for the year 1990-91,1991-92 and 1992-93. (2) According to petitioner's version, on 31st January 1989, the petitioner purchased the aforesaid property under an agreement to sell for a sum of Rs.ll,34,327.00 . He got the possession in 1991 and the same continued to be self-occupied. Ndmc issued notice (See P.49-50 of the file Annex.A) dated 17th January 1992 for the purpose of assessing the flat for the first time for the year 1990-91 under Section 67-A of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the Pm Act) at an ...
Refugees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Cooperative S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)1015; 1996(38)DRJ466; 1996RLR412
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This civil writ has been filed seeking (i) writ of mandamus and/or certiorari directing the respondent No.4-MCD to sanction lay out plan for carving out four plots out of plot No.61 on Road No.77 Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and (ii) quashing impugned orders dated 14th August 1992 and 30th September 1992 passed by respondent No.2-Additional Collector (Recovery), Cooperative Societies. (2) Undisputed facts in this civil writ are as under: Smt. Savitri Devi respondent No.3 was a member of the petitioner-Society since 2nd December 1951. On 1st February 1958 she was removed from the membership on account of non-payment. The order of removal from membership was cancelled ultimately by an award dated 19th August 1958 in the arbitration case and the petitioner-society was directed to restore membership of Smt. Savitri Devi and allot her a 'C' type plot measuring 600 sq. yds. But offers were made to her to accept a plot of the size of 200 sq. yds. or the whole plot measuring 240...
Nand Lal Pant Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT847; 1996(39)DRJ54
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Rule DB(2) With consent of the parties we propose to dispose of the petition today.(3) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the respective stand taken on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.4 in their respective counter affidavits, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and the reliefs prayed for in the petition deserve to be granted.(4) The petitioner having completed his post- graduation in Sanskrit from Delhi University in the year 1974 consequent upon an interview for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) he was appointed on 28.9.1974 as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Language) in respondent No.4 school on probation for a period of one year as per the appointment letter, annexure P-4. On completion of the period of probation his services were confirmed with effect from 16.9.1974 through letter annexure P-5. In the month of June, 1986 the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) fell vacant in the...
Indian thermit Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT549TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order-in-appeal dated 30-11-1994 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad.Proceedings were initiated by a show cause notice dated 4-10-1989 against the appellants alleging that credit of Rs. 1,39,752/- Was wrongly taken on the basis of Bills and Challans and without any proof of duty payment in contravention of Rules 57A and 57G of Central Excise Rules. There was also a charge that credit has been taken twice on inputs received on Gate Pass No. 26, dated 30-4-1989. This was sought to be recovered under Rule 57-1. A second show cause notice dated 23-2-1990 was also issued for reversal of credit of Rs. 19,111.58 taken on Aluminium ingots on 2-9-1990 without proof of payment of duty that on the consignment received from M/s. Mauji Lal Sons & Company. Both the show cause notices were adjudicated on 18-2-1991 by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand in both. This order was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »