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.
Niranjan Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC391
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This is a revision against the judgment dated 5.7.1993 of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 282/91 affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A, IPC 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 a fine of Rs. 1,000/- the sentence in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. In brief the prosecution case was to the effect thaton25.2.1986 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, th...
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT391TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) Ghaziabad dated 31-5-1994.2. Learned Counsel stated that this case relates to determination of correct classification of two items regarding which classification lists had been filed.3. It was his contention that the appellants not only manufacture component of cooling towers but other items also. The basic function of Cooling Tower is to cool off process hot water by the process of evaporation and supply it back to the process for reuse.4. A Cooling Tower is an equipment which consists of a building like structure to which are attached certain specific components which impart to the Cooling Tower its functional properties. The Fan Housing Segments are part of the Cooling Tower equipment but the Finned Tubes for Air Coolers/Heat Exchangers are not part of the Cooling Tower.5. In respect of the Finned Tubes they had made this submission before the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) and their submission was noted...
Adarsh Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT501TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have pressed the time-bar issue only.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of machines and appliances. They purchased 7130 Kgs. of C. R. strips falling under Tariff Heading 7211.51 under the cover of endorsed Invoice/Challan and took credit of input duty under the modvat scheme on the strength of these invoices.The department alleged that invoices were issued by an unregistered dealer and therefore, the invoices were not the prescribed documents for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57A read with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit taken on the strength of invoices issued by an unregistered dealer should not be denied to them and why penalty should not be imposed. After careful consideration of the submissions made before the lower authorities, the demand of Rs. 13...
Indian Dyestuff Inds. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT464TriDel
1. Common questions arise for consideration in these appeals. We have therefore heard them together.2. The appellant is manufacturer of Optical Whitening Agent under the brand name "Ranipol". Appeals relate to 7 price lists filed by the appellants indicating price for 50 Kg., 25 Kg. pack and less than 25 Kg. pack. The price was expressed per Kg. Price lists also indicated that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 100/66, dated 17-6-1966. The appellant took the stand that duty payable on less than 25 Kg. packs would not include duty on the element of packing. This interpretation of the notification was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeals.3. We have no hesitation to state that the language of the notification is not free from doubt. We do not propose to go deeper into the same since we are of opinion that the matter should be considered afresh by the Collector (Appeals). Appellant placed before ...
Associated Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT389TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Associated Chemical Industries against the impugned order dated 22-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. When the matter was posted for hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellants. On going through the issue involved and on taking into consideration that matter is of 1987, we felt that the matter can be disposed of even in the absence of the party. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri Haja Mohideen, learned JDR for the Revenue.3. In the instant case, Assistant Collector as per his order dated 17-1-1983 withdrew show cause notice without discussing issues on merits. Department has filed an application under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act before the Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) observed that the assessee/respondents before him failed to file price lists as required under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules in respect of the goods captively consumed in the m...
Electra Exports Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT382TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals). The ld. Collector (Appeals), in his order had upheld the absolute confiscation of the T.T. Balls holding that the import of these balls was in clear violation of the provision of Import Policy.2. Shri A.C. Jain, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that 36 dozens of table tennis balls were imported by the appellants in furtherance of the trade agreement entered into with the foreign supplier; that invoice clearly shows that the goods were being supplied free of cost and also that the value of the goods for customs purpose was $ 20/-. The ld. Counsel submits that these items were supplied for promotion of further orders. Referring to the Import Policy for the relevant period, the ld. Counsel submits that para 155 of the Import & Export Policy for the period 1st April, 1992 to 31st March, 1997 indicated prohibited items. He submits that the list clearly shows that the ...
Dharmender Kumar Vs. Air India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT857; (1997)ILLJ56Del
M.J. Rao, C.J.(1) This appeal has been filed against order of the learned Single Judge passed on 29.1.96 in Civil Writ 346/96. By that order, learned Single Judge stated that it is not disputed that certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1946 are applicable in the present case. Learned Single Judge also stated that the petitioner has an alternate remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. (2) This Court passed an order on 29.2.96 in C.M. 435/96 that the appellant's services be not terminated except on disciplinary proceedings or if the work load is not enough, the principle of last to come and first to go should be followed. The appellant should be continued only in accordance with the scheme, if any, followed by the respondent. (3) After hearing both sides, we find that the order dated 29.2.96 passed in C.M. 435/96, should be the order in this appeal also. (4) The appeal is disposed of accordingly in terms of the order dated 29.2.96 passe...
Indian Shaving Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT744TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8-9-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in which the Commissioner has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur confirming the demand of Rs. 1,13,895.71 on the ground that the appellant have wrongly availed of Modvat credit on Aluminium foils without declaring it as input in the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G. The learned Chartered Accountant Shri S. Madhavan for the appellant submitted that in this case they are manufacturing Shaving razor blades for which they have obtaining aluminium foil board sheet. They are sending this to their job workers who return it to them as tucks which are packages to contain 5 razor blades. These printed aluminium foil sheets have their brand name 7 O'clock. The department had initially denied Modvat thereon holding that these are not used in the manufacture of final product and not being an input for the purposes. T...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. LyphIn Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT147TriDel
1. The respondents herein manufacture various bulk drugs including Tinidazole. They had filed the classification list No. 211/86 dated 8-7-1986 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 234/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 for Tinidazole in terms of SI. No. 21 thereof. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bulsar approved the classification of bulk drugs under Heading 29.13 of the Central Excises Tariff Act, 1985 but denied the benefit of the Notification on the ground that it is not a bulk drug within the meaning of the explanation to the Notification as it does not conform to any pharmacopoeial standards and on the ground that the certificate issued by the Deputy Drugs Controller to the Government, produced by the respondents, was not acceptable as a substitute for the certificate from the Drugs Controller, which was the requirement of the Notification.2. The lower Appellate authority accepted the contention of the asses-sees that the Tinidazole is mentioned in Martindale Extra Pharmacop...
Kalyani Brakes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT489TriDel
1. The order dated 21-2-1989 of the Assistant Collector, Special Valuation Branch, Bombay and the appellate order dated 10-7-1990 of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay are challenged in this appeal.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Brake Systems for motor vehicles and components and parts. They entered into collaboration agreements with three foreign concerns, namely, M/s. Bendix USA (31-12-1983), M/s.Bendix France (11-6-1984) and M/s. Nippon Air Brake Co., Japan (21-5-1984) for technical know-how use of patent and assistance for the manufacture of Brake Systems, Spring Brakes, Master Clyinders, parts and components thereof agreeing to pay lump sum royalty in three instalments for technical information and royalty of an amount equal to 5% of net ex-factory sales price of all products and parts thereof manufactured by appellants and sold for licence to manufacture such products and parts thereof and for rendering technical assistance. The appellants were importing various components ...