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.
Cinnetekk Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT181TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras insofar as it relates to the upholding of the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the question of valuation of the goods imported by them. The import in question was of 100 pieces of reflectors 14" for Cine Projectors. The declared invoice value as per the invoice produced by them was Singapore $ 3000 corresponding to Rs. 18,873/-. The Assistant Collector enhanced the value to 4000 Japanese Yen per piece on the basis of certain invoices covering import of such goods which had been noticed by the Customs House. That part of the order having been uphold by the Collector (Appeals), the appellants have filed the present appeal before us.2. Shri K. Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the compared import which had been relied upon by the Customs House for enhancing the assessable value had been made more than year before thei...
Northern Minerals Pvt. Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT182TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad dated 21-2-1990. The questions involved relate to classification of the goods manufactured by the appellants having the trade name 'Dhanumon'. The appellants contend that the goods are classifiable under Item No. 3810.90 whereas the department contends that they are classifiable under Item No. 3810.10.2. By show cause notice dated 7-12-1988, the Additional Collector alleged that appellants had been manufacturing and clearing 'Dhanumon', a plant Herbicides falling under Sub-heading 3808.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 without Central Excise licence, without payment of duty, without maintaining central excise records and without observing other formalities. The appellants' factory was earlier visitied by Central Excise staff on 22-2-1988 when they found that the appellants' unit was engaged in the manufacture of Insecticides, Herbicides, Fungicides and plant harmones, all falling un...
Ram Singh @ Pahari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)1022; 63(1996)DLT610; 1996(38)DRJ455
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Criminal Appeal No.211/92 by Ram Singh @ Pahari and Criminal Appeal No.218/92 by Lalu Ram @ Pandit are directed against the judgment and order both dated 11.8.92 passed by Sh.S.C.Mittal, Additional Sessions Judge whereby both of them have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.l,000.00 each. In default of payment of fine, they are to further undergo Ri for one year each. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) Case of the prosecution, in brief , is that on the night intervening 31st October and 1st November,1986 at about 1.00 A.M.Dayal Chand, duty Constable Public Witness -5 conveyed information on telephone vide Dd No.18-A (Copy exhibit Public Witness 22/C) that Mohd. Rafiq has been admitted in hospital in burnt condition. On receipt of copy of that Dd No.18-A, Asi Sukhbir Singh, Pu...
Abdul Kalam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)813; 63(1996)DLT809; 1996(38)DRJ459
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) CR. A 227/92 by Abdul Kalam and Cr. A 8/93 by Anwar @ Pappi are directed against the judgment and order both dt. 28.11.92 of an Additional Sessions Judge. In terms of that judgment and order Anwar appellant was convicted u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 324 Ipc and 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of RS.1,000.00 u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code, to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 u/s 324 Indian Penal Code and to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.00 u/s 27 of Arms Act. Abdul Kalam, appellant was convicted u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 . Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order these are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) Case of the prosecution as borne out from the chargesheet filed u/s 173 Criminal Procedure Code is that on 13.4.91 on receipt of an information regarding quarrel t...
AmIn Zehra Rizvi Vs. Jamia Millia Lslamia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)481; 1996(39)DRJ276
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this court 'in which she has prayed that she be regularised on the post of Lecturer and be given benefit of seniority and all other consequential benefits. She has also prayed that the respondent be restrained from terminating her services. (2) On 19.12.1989, the petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer in English in Jamia Millia Islamia University in pursuance to an advertisement. In the advertisement two vacancies were shown as permanent lecturers and one as temporary lecturer in English. (3) Further, the case of the petitioner is that her application was scrutinised by a Screening Committee as per the procedure and after interview by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner was .recommended for the post of Lecturer in the said university. In pursuance of selection, the proceedings of the respondent university indicate 'After interview the committ...
Panacea Biotec Ltd. Vs. Recon Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)17; AIR1997Delhi244; 1996(26)ARBLR478(Delhi); 1996(38)DRJ732; 1996RLR420
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts as appear from the plaint are as follows : 2. The plaintiff is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals. On January 27, 1995, the plaintiff obtained license from the Drug Controller to manufacture 'NIMESULIDE TABLETS' each containing Nimesulide 100 mg. under the Brand name 'NIMULID'. The preparation is indicated in the treatment of inflammatory condition including joint disorders such as Rheumatoid arthritis, post traumatic and post operative painful condition and lever. The plaintiff after the grant of the drug license started the production of the drug under the trade mark 'NIMULID'. It is alleged that within a short span of about ten months the trade mark acquired a unique goodwill and reputation in this country. It is asserted that the t...
Sanghi Filaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT683TriDel
1. Captioned appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals) Madras dated 7-1-1987. The issue relates to classification of "Monofilament" under the old Traiff.2. Brief facts relating to the case are : Appellants are manufacturers of monofilament by extrusion process from out of polymer chips of plastic grade. They filed a classification list on 16-4-1985 declaring that the product attracts T.I. No. 18II(i)(a) of the old Tariff Item and claimed assessment at concessional rate of 6.25 per kg.Monofilament, according to appellants is used in the manufacture of Zip Fasteners for making spiral teeth. The classification list was provisionally approved by the Assistant Collector on 1-5-1985. Samples of the raw material as well as of spiral teeth which is the end product were then drawn and sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist. Pending receipt of the test results, the monofilaments were cleared after payment of duty on provisional basis. On 2-8-1985 appellants represented to Assistant ...
Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT500TriDel
1. This Appeal is directed against order in Appeal No. H-341/87-Bom., dated 28-9-1987 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).1.2 The question involved in this appeal is whether form, fill and seal machine is eligible to exemption under Notification No. 125/86, dated 17-2-1986. The Assistant Collector held that the machine as imported incorporated a gas flushing service. It did not incorporate flushing vacuumising equipment. Since Notification No. 125/86 under SI. No. 17 referred to FFS with vacuumising and inert gas flushing the appellants were not eligible to exemption. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal.3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Counsel submits that what is indicated in SI. No. 17 of the Notification is a machine with one of the functions. How these facilities are to be Utilised depends upon the type of goods which have to be packed. For instance they have to use inert gas because vacuuming in case of sweets would have the effec...
Maharaja International Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT528TriDel
1. The Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur has filed this reference application stating that the following questions of law have arisen out of the Tribunal's Order No. A/625/96-NB, dated 26-2-1996 :- (i) Whether credit can be allowed on the strength of endorsed bill of entry which is not prescribed as a document under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Board by virtue of powers conferred under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether Tribunal can allow Modvat credit on a document not prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Arguing the matter on behalf of the applicant Collector, Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR stated that the Government have issued instructions to the effect that endorsed gate passes are valid evidence or valid documents evidencing the payment of duty, while no such instruction has been issued in respect of bills of entry against which Modvat Credit to extent of [Countervailing duty] duty is being availed of by...
Jagraon Hosiery Works Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT686TriDel
1. The appellants in this case imported knitting needles which were assessed under Heading 84.38(2) of the Customs Tariff. Later on they filed a refund claim, seeking reclassification under Heading 84.38 (1) of the Customs Tariff. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim which rejection was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay giving rise to the present appeal before us.2. The case for the appellants was argued by Shri Saudagar G. Sahil, Consultant. Revenue was represented by Mohd. Ali, JDR. Shri Sahil stated that the appellant were manufacturers of hosiery/Knitwear holding the necessary certificate from the Director of Industries. The machinery used in their factory was Industrial machinery classifiable under Heading 84.38(1) and the needles imported for use with these machines were therefore properly classifiable under the same heading.He referred to the certificates given by the government agencies to this effect. Citing the judgments of the Tribunal in the case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »