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.
Bhadrachalam Paperboards Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT649TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the Order-in-appeal dated 21-8-1987 passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order, had held "Appellants are liable to pay duty on the paper and paper board cleared for manufacture of core pipes as they are not covered by the Notification No. 62/82 as amended by Notification No.48/83 and 79/86. The Notification is specific for manufacture of paper and paper board and core pipes are neither paper nor paper board. As such the duty is leviable and the order of Assistant Collector is not maintainable." 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board. They also manufacture core pipes.For manufacture of core pipes, they use paper manufactured by them.Core pipes are used captively for winding of other varieties of paper.A controversy arose whether duty should be demanded on the paper used in the manufacture of core pipes as alleged by the department or duty cannot be ...
S.R. Chanan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT147TriDel
1. The appeal by the appellant, Shri S.R. Chanan is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 12-11-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting their appeal before him and confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The Asstt. Collector had, vide his impugned Order rejected the declared invoice price at which the appellants had sought assessment of second hand Honda Accord Sedan G.L. 4 Doors 1598 CC (Model 1984) car.The Asstt. Collector had re-determined the assessable value of the car with reference to the price declared in the World Car Catalogue for 1984 Model of such make and allowed trade discount and depreciation of 46%. He had also added the reconditioning charge of Rs. 16,828/-, which had not been disclosed by the appellants originally but which had come to light during the scrutiny of relevant papers and information received from the supplier of the car.2. The appellant is not present nor arranged for repr...
Pratap Pawar Vs. Priya Pawar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)862; 63(1996)DLT704; 1996(38)DRJ636
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) is No. 207/95 is filed by the plaintiff under Order Xxxix Rules 1 and 2 for injunction restraining the first defendant form alienating the suit property and for injunction restraining the first defendant from dispossession the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the husband of the First defendant. His case is that he is the real and beneficial owner of the plot though the property was allotted in favor of the first defendant. The plaintiff applied for the allotment to the second defendant to the D.D.A. under Self- Financing Scheme by depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 in 1981. The said flat was allotted by defendant no.2 in 1984 and possession of the same was handed over in 1989 to Ms. Uma Chandra, sister of defendant no.1. (2) A total amount of Rs. 4,00,000.00 being the consideration for allotment was paid in installment by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got his telephone connection in August 1990. The telephone Number is 689 3224. The plaintiff ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Indo Swing Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT654TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The importers imported Razor Blade Coater and claimed the classification under sub-heading No. 84.59(2) of the erstwhile Tariff while the lower authorities assessed the same under sub-heading No. 85.18/27(1) of the erstwhile Customs Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) after careful consideration of the catalogue/literature/technical write- up and after considering the BTN (CCCN) upheld the importer's contention for classification under sub-heading 84.59(2) of the erstwhile Tariff. Hence the Revenue is in appeal. The Assistant Collector had proceeded to classify the machine under Chapter sub-heading 85.18/27(1) on the ground that the machine is having an individual function.2. The learned DR appearing for the department relied on the technical details of the machine to argue that the machine performs the process of electro plating and hence the classification adopted by the Collector (Appeals) is not appropri...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT696TriDel
1. This appeal is from the Revenue. The Respondents are manufacturers of Ice-cream. Vide Show Cause Notice dated 20-9-1994 Modvat credit totalling amounting to Rs. 40,022/- was sought to be denied on the ground that the documents under which the inputs were received were not the proper documents for availment of credit. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 23,635/- and dropped the balance demand of Rs. 16,387/-. The assessees filed an appeal disputing the lower orders to the extent of availment amounting to Rs. 15,848/-. The Commissioner allowed their appeal and set aside the lower orders resulting in the present appeal from the Revenue.2. Shri S.N. Ojha, ld. JDR, appearing for Revenue citing Notification No. 16/94-C.E.(NT), dated 30-3-1994 submitted that any gate passes prior to 1-4-1994 and endorsed on order after 1-4-1994 could not be treated as valid documents.3. As regards the invoices issued by dealers ld. JDR submitted that the reference to Section 2(k) of the Ac...
incon Electronic System P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT149TriDel
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, classifying Microprocessor Trainers and Prom Programmers manufactured by them under T.I. 33DD of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff (instead of under T.I.68 as claimed by the appellants) and consequential confirmation of the demand of duty of Rs. 1,70,388.50.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants started manufacture of Microprocessor Trainers and Prom Programmers in 1981.Microprocessor Trainer is an educational training equipment which helps to educate students as to the various uses which Microprocessor Chip 8085 can be put to. The other product viz. Prom Programmer is used to feed instructions on the chips to be used. The appellants were under the bona fide impression that the two items fell for classification under T.I. 68 and since they were a Small Scale Manufacturer and as their clearances did not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs, they were totally exempt...
Shri Ram Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT84TriDel
1. This case involves eligibility of duty paying documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit. The appellants purchased varnish from a dealer who had purchased the same from the depot of the manufacturer.The first document i.e. a gate pass was endorsed first by the manufacturer to the dealer and then by the dealer to the party. The second document is an invoice dated 14-4-1994 issued by the dealer which contains the specified particulars appearing in the original gate pass. The Assistant Collector on examination of these documents held that gate pass and the invoice were not eligible documents under Notification 15/94-C.E. (NT), 16/94-(NT) or 21/94(NT).2. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, ld. Counsel stated that these documents pass the test prescribed by all the 3 notifications. He cited the judgment in the case of Mossa Haji Patrawala Private Limited 1996 (83) E.L.T.620. He claimed that gate passes issued before 30-3-1994 but endorsed thereafter were admissible documents provided credit wa...
intercraft South (Exports) Pvt. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT107TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 10-12-1985.2. The ld. Representative of the appellants stated that they have imported VEIT Varioset Fusing Press and claimed assessment under Heading 84.40(1) but the department classified it under 84.59(1).Therefore; after clearance, they paid during under protest and filed a refund claim on the ground that this machine is a fusing press and not an ironing machine. Their contention was not accepted by the authorities. Hence, the appeal.3. He would, in this connection draw attention to the catalogue which shows that it is a Flat Top Fusing Press for all fusing processes and for use in design and studios. The machine is equipped with variable controls for temperature from 65C to 230C, pressure from 0 to 6 bar with the result it is most versatile fusing machine in the world which is capable of fusing any two types of materials irrespective of their compositions. Further as per Notification No. 16/85-Cus., dated ...
Tilak Raj Vs. Jagdish Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)843; 63(1996)DLT608; (1996)114PLR50
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The short question requiring consideration in this case at this stage of the proceedings is as to whether the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Order Xxxix Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') and if not to what effect? The plaintiff in the present case has filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. On the above said application, which came up for hearing before this Court on 12.4.96 the following order was passed : 'This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for grant of ex parte order of injunction. I have gone through the averments made in the plaint, the contents of the application and have also heard the learned Counsel for the ...
Sikander Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT624
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th September, 1992 and order dated 26th September, 1992 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2000.00 under Section 302 and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500.00 under Section 27, Arms Act. (2) There was a dispute between the appellant Sikander Lal (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and his brother-in-law Ram Nath about a shop being shop No. 31, Central Road, Bhogal, New Delhi. Chaman Lal and Kundan Lal were real brothers who were running a business of selling vegetables in the said shop. Chaman Lal died and in his place his son Sikander Lal, the appellant started doing the same business in the shop. Kundan Lal, the other brother who was doing business Along with father of the appellant became too old and stopped attending to the shop. In his place he put up his s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »