Delhi Court November 1997 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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Glass Fibres and Allied
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT363TriDel
1. These three appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of the same order-in-appeal in which the Collector had dealt with three applications filed before him in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in respect of three assessees. The case for the appellants was argued by Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR. All the three respondents were represented by Shri G. Shiva Dass, Advocate.2. In each case, the classification suggested by each assessee for glass fabric impregnated/laminates was under Heading 8546.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The insulating fittings of various sizes and shapes were sought to be classified under Heading 8547.00. In each case, the Assistant Collector accepted the classification suggested by the assessees. In the Application, the point raised was that these goods would merit classification under Heading 7014.00 as articles of glass. The Collector in his impugned order upheld the classification as approved by the Assistant Collector....
Technical Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT446TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 25-8-1989 passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 11,311.92 on the ground that having opted for the facility of assessment under Notification 120/75, dated 30-4-1975 it was not open to them to claim any deduction excepting Central Excise Duty and local taxes if any. He has observed in his order that raising of separate invoice for freight and insurance did not absolve the appellants of their liability to pay duty with reference to such elements also. On that basis he held the appellant to be liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the invoices raised by them including that relating to freight and transit insurance.2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Counsel stated that the Tribunal held in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. as reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 159 that even in a case where the goods were assessed under Notification 120/75, the as...
Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR771(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the assessed by the Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the penalty despite the provisions of s. 140A(3) having been held by the High Court of Madras to be ultra virus the Constitution ?' 2. For the asst. yr. 1974-75 proceedings for penalty under s. 140A(3) were initiated by the ITO against the assessee-company and ultimately a penalty of Rs. 1,55,800 was imposed. This penalty was imposed by the ITO for a default of the appellant in paying the tax of Rs. 6,23,222 on self-assessment basis. The ITO rejected the assessor's plea that this payment of self-assessment tax had escaped the attention of the then officer-in-charge who was handling the income-tax matters of the company. He held that it was the responsibility of the assessee-company to pay the tax on self-asse...
D. Lonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhardwaj Engineering
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT761
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) Petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, has filed this revision petition, assailing the order dated 15.7.1995. The learned Civil Judge by the said order dated 15.7.1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') rejected petitioner's application under Order Xiii Rule 2 Sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being permitted to place on record certain letters. By the impugned order another application filed by the petitioner under Order Xiv Rule 4 Sub-rule (2) was allowed and an issue was framed as under : 'WHETHER the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm and the suit ha snot been instituted by a registered and fully authorised partner?'The issue has been couched in terms, putting the onus of proof on the defendant petitioner. (2) The essential facts for disposal of this revision petition may be noticed in brief. (I)Petitioner is defendant in suit bearing No. 559/88, filed by the respondent on the basis of a hire contract for shuttering...
Gogo Rani Vs. Rajinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT781; 1997(43)DRJ772
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Defendant No. 1 has filed this application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code alleging that the plaintiff on application under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code obtained ex-parte injunction against defendant No. 1. On application for vacation of the ex- parte injunction being filed by defendant No. 1, the order was modified and Shri Rajiv Awasthi, Advocate was appointed as receiver to take over the possession of the premises and the machinery. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed Fao (OS). No. 189/95 against the order of appointment of Shri Awasthi as receiver and the same was disposed of by the Division Bench by an order dated November 9, 1995. It is alleged that despite the order passed by the Division Bench, the plaintiff has neither paid the profit to defendant No.1 of his share nor has she discharged the liability of the Bank. It was prayed that in place of the plaintiff, defendant No .1 may be appointed as a court receiver.(2) In the reply plaintiff...
Anshuman Aggarwal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)824; 1997(43)DRJ714
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) RULE.(2) By this common judgment, I would be disposing of the above two writ petitions as common questions and issues arise in both the petitions.(3) Petitioners, Dr.Anshuman Aggarwal and Dr.Gagan Gupta, had both taken the competitive entrance examination on 'All India basis' being conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (in short AIIMS) respondent No.2 herein, for admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental courses for the year 1997. The said examination was being conducted by respondent No.2, Aiims for admission to 25% of seats in the various Post Graduate courses available in different colleges in India. In terms of the advertisement and the bulletin of information issued, the Post Graduate courses comprised the MD/MS course for a duration of three years, while diploma courses were for a duration of two years. The bulletin listed out the various courses and subjects and Medical Colleges in which these course were available. Written examinat...
Rahul Shukla Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT797; 1998RLR361
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Respondent issued circular dated 22nd July, 1994 containing guidelines in the matter of prematureretirement/resignation' from service. It provided officers who have put in less than 20 years service can resign from service. Petitioner applied for the same but by impugned order his request was rejected. Feeling aggrieved he filed this writ petition. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Indian Army as Doctor in Army Medical Corps on 5th November, 1982. On 23rd March, 1993 he put up his papers seeking resignation on compassionate grounds. The respondent declined his. request vide letter dated 10th November, 1993. The request of resignation was repeated by petitioner on 23rd March. 1994 but the same was returned to him to supply additional inputs. Third time petitioner put up his papers on 6th June, 1994 thereby giving detailed reasons inspire of the reasons furnished by him his request was not acceded to. The same was rejected on 15th F...
D.K. Puri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1037; 71(1998)DLT286; 1998(44)DRJ268; 1998RLR114
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The short point involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner should continue under suspension or his suspension be revoked without prejudice to the right of the respondent to continue with the departmental action initiated against him? (2) In order to answer this, we may have a look at the relevant facts necessary for the determination of this question. Petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Engineer with Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (in short DESU) in 1974. He got promotion and became Superintending Engineer in January,1994. While working as Superintending Engineer (SM), in charge of the Store at Okhla, a complaint was lodged against him that he committed mis-conduct unbecoming of a municipal employee. There was a charge of dereliction of duty as he failed to allot transformers for East circle on 17th July,1995 which were to be replaced with burnt transformers. Secondly he used filthy and abusive language against Mr.Harsh Verdhan, Health Minister o...
Omarova Khazinet Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1500; 69(1997)DLT977; 1997(43)DRJ775
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The petitioner has been ordered to be detained in terms of order dated 8th November, 1996 issued in the name of Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, 1974 (for short 'the Act') with a view to preventing her from smuggling goods and has been ordered to be kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar , New Delhi. A Declaration dated 11th December, 1996 under Section 9(1) of the Act has also been made in terms of the order made by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The petitioner seeks in this petition setting aside of the detention order and for being set at liberty forthwith. (2) The detention order was passed while the petitioner was already in custody . According to the petitioner the order of detention, grounds of detention and the documents were supplied to her only on 8th January, 1997 after the Advisory Board's direction dated 6th J...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Associated Switch Gears (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC228
1. The appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut is against the order-in-appeal dated 7-10-1986 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad setting aside the order-in-original dated 13-2-1986 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Ghaziabad whereby the last mentioned authority had held that Modvat credit of Rs. 26,100/- taken by M/s. Associated Switch Gear (P) Ltd. respondents in the present appeal was not admissible and could not be allowed under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules. He accordingly demanded the said amount under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. This order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on appeal by the assessee (respondent herein) holding inter alia, that the delay in the application under Rule 57H was no ground to disallow credit as that was only an additional request. He also held that the assessee "should have been allowed Modvat credit on inputs lying under Rule 56A on 1-3-1986 and the audit object...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »