Delhi Court September 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.
Precision Drilling Equipments Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT448TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6-6-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Ghaziabad by which he has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida rejecting the refund claim of the appellant herein as time barred. The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 7,93,333.20 on 6-9-1988 for the duty paid during 9-5-1985 to 18-10-1985 on the ground that the goods were exempted from duty as per Deemed Export Notification 211/85, dated 24-9-1985. Since no duty was payable they claimed refund thereof which had been paid erroneously. Show cause notice was issued on 26-9-1988 asking them to show cause why their refund claim should not be rejected as it had been filed beyond six months time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 because the duty was paid till 9-5-1985 to 18-10-1985 whereas the refund claim was filed on 6-9-1988 after a period of nearly 3 years. In the show cause notice it was a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rupani Textile Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT434TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by the Department against the common impugned order dated 5-9-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Since the issue is common in all these cases that are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. When all these cases posted for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri M. Haja Mohideen, JDR for the Revenue. It was contentions of the respondents before the authorities below that they purchased round wire and converted into flattened wire through the rollers and such process of flattening is not a process under Section 2(f) of the Act, and such flattened wires do not satisfy the definition of strip as laid down under Tariff Item 25(12) of the old Tariff Act. They also relied upon the Government of India's Circular No. 14/85, dated 9-12-1985 in support of their contention. T...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hoechst (India) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT592TriDel
1. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla Free Trade Zone has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Kandla rejecting the refund claim made by the present respondents.2. The respondents who established a manufacturing unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone imported several items of capital goods including one IWK Packing Line UPS-4ET machine. This machine and other capital goods were cleared at nil rate of duty as per Bill of Entry dated 1-12-1982 in terms of Customs Notification No. 77/80 dated 17-4-1980. Using these machines, respondents were manufacturing goods and exporting the same during the years 1983-84 to 1988-89. In 1989, the respondents applied for and obtained permission from the licensing authority, the Controller of Imports & Exports, for transfer of the Packing Line Machine from Kandla Free Trade Zone to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) for use at their own factory...
South India Surgical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT288TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13-5-1986 of Collector of Customs.2. Ld. Collector held that "Folay Baloon Catheters" imported by the appellants is not covered under Appendix 6(33) List 2 of OGL Import & Export Policy for the period 1985-88 because the goods are not Suction Catheters.3. None appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. The appellants have, however, desired the decision on merits.4. Ld. DR submits that S. No. 31 of Appendix 6(33) List 2 covers "Suction Catheters". The goods imported however, are Folay Baloon Catheters. While reiterating the departmental arguments, he, however, fairly concedes that for the purpose of Notification No. 208/81 which grants exemption to such equipment, the Tribunal in Order Nos. 509 & 510/85-B held that such folay Baloon Catheters are covered by the term "Suction Catheters" and would qualify for exemption of duty.5. We have heard ld. DR and have perused the records of the case. In the Final Order N...
Sairam Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT608TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay, dated nil but attested by the Supdt. on 28-9-1987.2. Learned Counsel stated that they have filed an appeal against the A.C.'s order before the Collector (Appeals) with an application for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. The delay had been caused due to serious illness of the wife of the appellant who was the only male partner of the firm. Since the ailment was serious, the appellant could not attend to his normal activities properly and could not file the appeal within the prescribed time.3. The Collector (Appeals), however, rejected the COD application and consequently, the appeal which was filed against the A.C.'s order and on that basis, the appeal against the consequential demand order passed by the Supdt. with reference to the A.C.'s order.4. It was his submission that learned Collector should have allowed the application for condonation of delay as the wife was suffering from a very serio...
Niranjan Singh Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ336
ORDER1. This is a revision against the judgment dated 5-7-1993 of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Cr. Appeal No. 282/91 affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. of which he had been convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and sentenced in consequence to rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as fine of Rs. 1000/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. In brief the prosecution case was to the effect that on 25-2-86 at about 8.30 a.m. the petitioner was driving bus No. DEP 6107 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he tried to overtake a vehicle from wrong side and since he could not find any space for overtaking, he applied the brakes at full speed and because of the jerk, the deceased Badal Chandra Dass, who was traveling in the bus, fell down as a result whereof he was run over by the rear wheel of the bus. On hearing the alarm raised by passengers, the petiti...
Bawa and Ranny Vs. Delhi Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)629; 1996(26)ARBLR655(Delhi); 64(1996)DLT409; 1996(38)DRJ656
D.K. Jain, J. (1) These are three, revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the lower appellate Court dated 31 August 1979, dismissing the three suits filed by the plaintiff(petitioner herein). (2) Since all the three petitions involve common questions for determination, these can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. (3) The plaintiff, a partnership firm, brought four suits against the respondent ( a Cooperative House Building Society) for recovery of commission at 2% on the purchase price of the land which the respondent society had purchased separately from four different vendors. According to the plaintiff the respondent society had appointed it as its commission agent for the purchase of land at Dehra Dun and the plaintiff after strenuous efforts and labour got the sale deeds of lands in question registered in their favour. The plaintiff claimed that according to the trade and market usage the respondent was bound to pay ...
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT4; 1996(39)DRJ34
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This appeal has been filed against the order of the Company Law Board dated 15.11.95.(2) DR.SINGHVI, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised similar contentions which were argued by the appellant before the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). In short, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that order of Board directing transfer of shares in favor of respondent no. I, i.e. Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Standard Chartered') was against public policy and in violation of law and, thereforee, the order of the Board in this regard is illegal. Dr.Singhvi further contended that as the Controller of Capital Issues had imposed a condition regarding sale of 20% Bonds over the counter to the general public, condition having been communicated to respondent no.2, i.e. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ABFSL) and as said Abfsl and Standard Chartered Bank have violated the condition, the orde...
Pinki Devi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ189
Usha Mehra, J. (1) RULE. (2) Husband of the petitioner joined, Indian Army as Sepoy after he was declared medically fit in all respects. He was posted at Kashmir Boarder in the Year 1984-86. There he performed his duties to the satisfaction of the respondent. In 1986-87 he was transferred to Bareilly. During the period from November, 1983 till October, 1987 petitioner's husband did not suffer from any disability nor fell sick nor he was admitted to any military hospital. In November 1987 Petitioner's husband was sent to Sri Lanka as part of Indian Peace Keeping Force (in short IPKF). At the time of sending him to jana at Sri Lanka he was medically examined. The Medical Board declared him fit in all respects to carry out arduous duties at jana in Sri Lanka. (3) While being part of IPKF on 22nd February, 1988, the petitioner's husband fell sick. He was admitted in a local hospital. Thereafter he was shifted to Military Hospital at Madras. The said hospital in turn shifted the deceased to...
Madho Ram Vs. P.K. Jain, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)691; 64(1996)DLT491; 1996(39)DRJ199
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Cwp No. 1202/96 dated 25.3.96, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-workman and refusing to interfere with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 2.1.96. (2) The writ petitioner Shri Madho Ram claimed, in his statement before the Tribunal that he was employed with M/s Sandhu Traders (employers) as Machine man for I year and was drawing a salary of Rs. 600 p.m. He claimed that his services were terminated on 24.8.81 when he demanded compensation and wages during the period when he was injured in his left-hand, and that no prior notice was given. He also claimed that-he had sent a registered notice on 16.9.81 to the employers. (3) In their written statement, the employers alleged that the workman was not in their employment and that there was no relationship of employer and workman and that, in fact, the workman did not receive any injury. Other allegations we...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »