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.
Arvind Sharma Vs. Dhara Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)557; 69(1997)DLT937; 1997(43)DRJ613; 1998RLR46
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.97 passed by the Additional District Judge in H.M.A. No. 844/97, has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge did not accede to the request of the petitioner for waiving of the statutory period of six months for filing of the second motion for divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and directed the petition to be listed on 21.3.98. (2) The respondent supports the petitioner in the present Revision Petition. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be briefly noticed: Petitioner was married to the respondent on 9.11.97. The marriage ran into rough weather. There were differences between the parties, leading to the respondent filing a complaint with the Dowry Cell under Section 406/498A/34 Indian Penal Code which was registered as Fir No.531/97 with Police Station, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 and his family memb...
Kedar Nath Gupta Vs. J.K. Organisation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 71(1998)DLT818
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This CM(M) 69/77 takes exception to an order rejecting the application No. 2568/75 for registration of trade mark consisting of the words 'JAY KAY' in class 6 in respect of locks, rolled and cast building materials, bolts, nuts, screws, door hinges and nails for sale in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Mysore, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. (2) According to the petitioner Kedar Nath Gupta, the mark 'JAY KAY' is being used by him since 1965. It is claimed that since 1948, the applicant was working under the name and style J.K. Varshney&Co.; He adopted the trade name 'JAY KAY' after his trading style 'Jay Kay & Company' for his manufactured locks by adopting the initials of his father and his own name for the customers and dealers in South India made clerical mistakes in the cheques in mis spelling and word 'Varshney' in the year 1965. He claims to have following sale turnover of his goods under the trade mark 'JAY KAY': Period Sale in Rs. 1965 1,11,000.00 1966 70,526.79 ...
Sri Kaliswari Fireworks Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT93TriDel
1. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period from 17-8-1987 to 8-3-1989. Appellant was filing price lists during a part of the period and during the remaining period appellant was following Invoice Price Procedure under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules. Appellant was collecting 1% of the price towards transit insurance charges but the charges actually paid to the insurer were much less. This was admitted by one of the partners of the appellant in his statement before the Superintendent of Central Excise. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued deciding the above facts, proposing demand of difference between the insurance charges collected from buyers and charges paid to the insurer and proposing imposition of penalty.Appellant resisted the notice on the ground of limitation. Overruling this contention, the Additional Collector confirming the demand imposed penalty of Rs. 1,500/-.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the claim of the department is not sus...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT378TriDel
1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of excisable product, had filed price list dated 5-9-1988 in Part II in respect of certain goods fabricated by them for supply to their customers. The same was approved by the Assistant Collector and respondent had cleared the goods paying duty in accordance with such approved price list. Subsequently, the department found that in addition to the price declared in the price list amounting to Rs. 1,28,000/-, an additional sum of Rs. 10,500/- was collected by them as third party inspection charges. An application was filed by the Assistant Collector before the Collector (Appeals) for setting aside the approval of the price list and issuing direction for including the aforesaid testing charges in the assessable value. The Collector (Appeals), however, did not agree with the stand taken in the application and rejected it. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed by the department.2. Respondents...
Tungabhadra Steel Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT64TriDel
1. Appellant is a Government of India Undertaking. As per the directions of the Supreme Court, appellant is required to move the Committee of Secretaries for clearance. Appellant has not informed the Tribunal whether the Committee has been moved in the matter.2. Notice of hearing has been sent to the appellant. Nevertheless appellant is not present and is not represented; nor is there any request for adjournment. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for default....
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT478TriDel
1. The respondent in the appeal, engaged in the manufacture and sale of Soda Ash, manufactured one unit of Fireless Locomotive for moving various kinds of goods within the factory in the course of manufacture of the final product. In respect of the Fireless Locomotive, respondent filed price list under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, furnishing the cost of raw materials, the cost of production and indicating notional margin of profit as 10%. The price list was approved provisionally and paid duty on that basis. It was found that the gross profit of the final product in the year in question was 21.51%. On this basis, show cause notice was issued proposing quantification of the notional profit as 21.51% instead of 10% and proposing demand of differential duty. The notice was opposed by the respondent on several grounds. Respondent contended, inter alia, that there was actually no profit in the manufacture of Fireless Locomotive as only one unit was manufacture...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kerala Oil and Soaps Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT264TriDel
1. Respondent has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits.We have heard Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent filed price list declaring the wholesale price and the assessable value and seeking deduction of cash discount allowed to dealers who pay price in cash or by demand draft. The Assistant Collector approved the price list subject to the condition that cash discount is actually availed by buyers and differential duty has to be paid in cases where buyers have not availed cash discount. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) set aside the order. The department being aggrieved has filed this appeal.3. Department has no case that allowance of cash discount was not known to the trade or was not available to all who paid the price in cash or by demand draft. It may be that some buyers do not make such payment and do not avail the cash discount. There is no reason to hold that deduction from price should not be allowed in respect of the discount.We have h...
Fgp Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT599TriDel
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.Vide their communication dated 22-10-1997, the appellants made a request to decide the appeal on merits.2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 6-9-1990 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In the impugned order, the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) held that the glass fibre mentioned at serial No. 10 of Notification No.52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 will cover only woven fabrics and not non-woven fabrics. The appellants' product being non-woven fabrics would fall under serial No. 11 of the said Table.4. In this case, the appellants are claiming the benefit of Notification No. 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. In the impugned order, the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) held that glass fabrics mentioned in serial No.10 of the Notification will cover only woven fabrics and not non-woven fabrics. Hence they are not entitled for the benefit of Serial No. 10 of the Notif...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Standard Metal Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT447TriDel
1. The department has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22-6-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay setting aside the order dated 10-7-1989 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. Respondent has sent a request for adjournment of the case. Having perused the record we are of the opinion that appeal could be disposed of even without hearing the respondent. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, J DR.3. Respondent was receiving raw materials from suppliers and returning the same after processing to the suppliers. Price list was filed showing the assessable value as the sum total of cost of raw materials, labour charges and 10% margin of profit. Assistant Collector issued a letter to the respondent directing addition of cost of packing and 3% melting loss to the assessable value. Treating this letter as an order, the job worker filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who held that there was no justification to add these two elements as also t...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Super Instruments Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD79(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - II, New Delhi and relates to the assessment year 1985-86.2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal projects the following grievance :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in quashing the assessment made after invoking provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessee had claimed technical collaboration expenses as revenue expenditure without linking them with the date of production which resulted in underassessment and as such the case was clearly covered by the provisions of Explanation 1(a) to section 147 of the Income-tax Act." 3. Briefly the facts. Original assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 5,162 on 31-12-1985. Subsequently the assessment was reopened by resorting to the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The assessee made a claim in respect ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »