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.
S.K. Chopra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)882; 63(1996)DLT403; 1996(38)DRJ261; 1996RLR366
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) ADMIT. (2) Here is a case where a person keeping his own acts of wrong neatly wrapped under a rug throws the proverbial stone at another and in the process invites an order not only against the person complained against but against himself too. (3) The facts make an interesting reading. Chatturbhuj who owns the ground floor of building bearing No. EA-114, Inderpuri, New Delhi filed a writ petition against S.K.Chopra owner of the 1st and 2nd floor of the same building and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi alleging that since illegal and unauthorised construction had been made by S.K.Chopra on the floors owned by him in violation of the sanctioned plan and the building bye laws, direction for its demolition be made. It, however, transpired during the pendency of the writ petition that what to talk of S.K.Chopra, Chatturbhuj too was guilty of having raised construction in his own portion in violation of the sanctioned plan and the building bye laws. (4) The learned s...
Dujadwala Resins and Terpenes Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT53TriDel
1. L.K. Modi, Accounts Officer of the appellants sought adjournment on the ground that the concerned member of the staff is not available today. We do not think this is an adequate ground for adjournment. We have heard appellants' representative as well as Shri Vijay Singh, SDR.2. Appellants imported a consignment of 1500 M.T. of Natural Oleo Pine Resin from a supplier in Switzerland who shipped the goods from Brazil.Appellants presented six Bills of Entry and other documents for clearance. The invoices showed the weight of each consignment and the price. The invoice also stated "Two Kilograms per drum reduction on account of transit and invisible loss". The proportionate price of 2 Kgs. per drum was deducted and the net invoice price arrived at. The Assistant Collector declined to allow this deduction and accepted the price in the invoices without any deduction. This order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.3. The appellants' representative stated that...
Sona Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT439TriDel
1. These are appeals filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur mentioned above.2. Both the learned Counsels stated that in these cases although the orders are different and the periods are different, the issue involved is the same.3. This common issue is regarding the assessment of duty on galvanised wires of non-alloy steels falling under sub-heading No. 7217.90.4. In these cases the demand had been raised for the period 14-5-1992 to 25-6-1992 vide show cause notices issued on 4-1-1995 in the case of Sona Wires and Surya Wires whereas the date is 17-1-1994 in the case of Bhilai Wires and 29-12-1994 in the case of Swastik Wires.5. It was their contention that before 14-8-1992, the effective rate of duty applicable was Rs. 1,000/- PMT which was the tariff rate at that time.6. In the Finance Bill placed before the Parliament on 28-2-1992, the tariff rate was still shown as Rs. 1000/- PMT.7. Accordingly, they filed classification lists showing the rate of dut...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Him Ispat Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT55TriDel
1. Case called. Appellant/Revenue is represented by Shri Y.R. Kilania and respondents were represented by Shri Vinod Agarwal, learned Advocate. Heard both sides.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cold roll Strip and are availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A. According to the department, they availed Modvat credit of Rs. 88,111.80 on 8,820 of Balmerroll Aquaroll HI-20 by using the same as lubricant in machines and in no way used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Assistant Collector who adjudicating the proceedings denied the Modvat credit on the ground that item in question has not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. On the other hand, Collector (Appeals) on appeal filed by the party, observed that this was used in relation to the manufacture of the finished products and, accordingly, he allowed the appeal.3. Collector (Appeals) has given a clear f...
Devidayal Aluminium Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT627TriDel
1. Arguing for the appellants Shri Yadav, learned Advocate, submitted that issue relates to Modvat credit. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of copper strips/foils, aluminium pressure cookers and aluminium racks etc. The appellants use lubricating oil, Hydraulic Oil and Gear Oil, under different names and brands in relation to the manufacture of final product. Lubricating oil used by the appellants continues to fall on copper sheets during the course of manufacture of copper strips and foils to protect it from developing cracks as also to render the product smooth, besides rendering the machines as installed in the factory, operational. The Assistant Commissioner who adjudicated the proceedings held that credit is allowed only on those inputs which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The lubricating oil and hydraulic oil are not used in the manufacture of final product but used for lubricating purposes. Hence, these items do not qualify to be in...
Collector of Customs Vs. Unique Bio Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC381Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) setting a side the order passed by the Assistant Collector.2. In November, 1980 respondents imported 400 Kgs. of a chemical by name "CREATININE" at the price of DM 100 per Kg. from an Austrian supplier. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to the respondent to show cause to the Collector against the allegation of undervaluation.The Collector held that there was no misdeclaration of value but directed the Assistant Collector to adjudicate on the correct assessable value and duty payable as it was within the latter's jurisdiction. The Assistant Collector determined the value at US $ 95 per Kg. and demanded differential duty. This order was set a side by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal by the department.2. The invoice price of DM 100 per Kg. would be equal to about US $ 65 per Kg. The assessable value determined by the Assistant Collector was US $ 95 per Kg., an increase of around 45...
Dr. Neera Gupta and Etc. Vs. University of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi175; 1996(39)DRJ205
ORDER1. These petitions are classic illustrations of discrimination and arbitrariness. Discrimination and arbitrariness in State actions strike at the very foundation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws against every State action. The right to equality is the most important fundamental right of any democratic society. Fundamental rights are considered inalienable, natural and very basic bundle of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of any civilised society.2. This order shall dispose of writ petitions Nos. 1141, 1147 and 1154 of 1996. The basic facts of these petitions are almost identical, thereforee, to avoid repetition detailed facts of only Writ Petition No. 1141/96 are recapitulated. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court because of the letter dated 14th March, 1996 sent by Assistant Registrar (Medical), to the Dean Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. In this le...
Neera Gupta Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)337; 63(1996)DLT458; 2003(39)DRJ205
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) These petitions are classic illustrations of discrimination and arbitrariness. Discrimination and arbitrariness in State actions strike at the very foundation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws against every State action. The' right to equality is the most important fundamental right of any democratic society. Fundamental rights are considered inalienable, natural and very basic bundle of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of any civilised society. (2) This order shall dispose of writ petitions No. 1141, 1147 and 1154 of 1996. The basic facts of these petitions are almost identical, thereforee, to avoid repetition detailed facts of only Writ Petition No. 1141/96 are recapitulated. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court because of the letter dated 14th March, 1996 sent by the Assistant Registrar (Medical), to the Dean, Maulana Azad Medical Colleg...
Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Vs. Lalit Ahuja Trading as Ahuja Associates
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)785; 63(1996)DLT728; 1996(38)DRJ489
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit against two defendants for injunction restraining the defendants from selling, manufacturing, offering for sale and distributing welding electrodes under the infringing trade mark Ador, Overcord, Superinox and Advani - Oerlikon and packing material used by the plaintiff. (2) It is not necessary to refer to the allegations mentioned in the plaint in detail excepting slating that the trade mark of the plaintiff are registered and the sales figures which are given in the plaint and the excise duty paid for the purpose of showing the business done by the plaintiff are given. They are as follows: Financial Year Excise Duty Paid 1984-85 Rs. 872 lakhs 1985-86 Rs. 1066 lakhs 1986-87 Rs.l201 lakhs 1987-88 Rs. 1.976 lakhs 1.988-89 (18 months) Rs.1967 lakhs 1989-90 Rs. 1747 lakhs 1990-91 Rs. 1981 lakhs 1991-92 Rs.2304.75 lakhs 1992-93 Rs.2737.44 lakhs 1993-94 Rs.2393.36.lakhs (3) The case of the defendants, in short is that they are only sell...
Ruttonsha International Rectifier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)681; 1996(38)DRJ265
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an application under section 30 of the Arbitration Act whereby the petitioner seeks setting aside of the award of the arbitrator dated September 21, 1984. The respondent Union of India entered into a contract on December 20, 1973 with the petitioner for supply of four numbers of mobile transformer rectifiers and their spares. Date for completion of the supplies was fixed as April 30, 1974. However, subsequently the delivery date was refixed as March 15, 1975. It needs to be mentioned that the petitioner requested for increase in price of the rectifiers in view of the refixation of the delivery date. On February 7, 1975, the petitioner informed the Union of India that one rectifier was ready and would be offered for inspection. Subsequently, by another letter dated February 20, 1975, the petitioner offered the said equipment for inspection of the respondent. On April 28, 1975, the delivery period was again extended by the Union of India to May 31, 1975. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »