Delhi Court December 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.
Automotive Axles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT348TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this Appeal is whether the imported goods are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8207.90 as claimed by the Appellants or they were classifiable under Chapter Heading 8208.10, read with Chapter sub-heading 8461.40 as held by the Department and whether they will be assessed under Notification No.69/87 or under Notification No. 68/87.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants imported gear cutting tools which were assessed under Chapter Heading 98.06, read with Notification No. 69/87. Subsequently, a demand was raised reclassifying the goods under Chapter Heading 8208.10 read with Chapter Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 and the duty short levied amounting to Rs. 83,790/- was confirmed. The Asstt.Collector in the Order-in-Original held that the goods are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8208.10 read with 8461.40. In appeal, the ld.Collector (Appeals) held that the goods shall be classifiable under Chapte...
Bhavani and Son Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(59)ECC582
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of self adhesive tapes and cloth based tapes, was filing price lists in Part II and on approval of the same clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. It was found that during the period from 1-4-1984 to 5-8-1987, appellant was recovering Rs. 200/- per tape towards development charges for art work done and printing on self adhesive tapes by raising debit notes separately. This element should have been included in the assessable value and was suppressed in the price lists and there was mis-declaration with intent to evade duty. Show cause notice dated 3-5-1989 was issued with the above averments and proposing demand of duty and imposition of penalty. Appellant contended that wherever customers desired printing to be done, a block containing the name and other particulars re...
Collector of Cen. Ex. Vs. Standard TIn Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT113TriDel
1. The respondents herein filed a classification list dated 22-3-1985 for various products in which they classified their product 'Sprayer' under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and claimed exemption in terms of Sl. No. 12 of Notification No.234/82, dated 1-11-1982 which covers hand pumps. The classification list was approved without extending the benefit of the notification.The Assistant Collector denied the exemption on the ground that sprayers are different from hand pumps. Two refund claims were filed for refund of duty paid under protest on sprayers for the period 1-10-1984 to 31-3-1985 and 1-4-1985 to 30-9-1985. Both these claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector since the issue of classification of sprayers had already been decided by him by denying the exemption claim. Two separate appeals were filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay who, vide the impugned order, set aside the Assistant Collector's orders hold...
Hilton Rubbers Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC141Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no representation and no request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M.AH, JDR and perused the papers.2. Two refund claims preferred by the appellant had been dismissed on the ground that the burden of duty had been passed on to the buyers and therefore there could not be refund. This principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. . We therefore find no ground to interfere and dismiss the appeal....
Ashi Private Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC139Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-original No. 10/90-91 dated 19.9.1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad, confirming demand of the duty to the extent of Rs. 1,69,720.10 and imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is under challenge in this appeal.2. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 10.10.1989 to 30.11.1989. Appellant was manufacturing and supplying sleepers to the Railways using H.S. Wires and inserts supplied free of cost by the railways. Appellant filed price lists in Part I declaring the price paid by the railways for the purpose of determining the assessable value and approval thereof, was clearing goods on payment of appropriate duty. Show cause notice dated 6.7.1990 was issued alleging suppression of material facts and stating that the assessable value should include the cost of materials supplied free of cost by the railways and to this extent there was misdeclaration of value. The notice proposed demand of differential duty arrived at on that basis and i...
Vineeta Srivastava Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ149
Cyriac Joseph, J.(1) According to the petitioner she had passed her B.A. examination in the year 1982 from Lucknow University with 61.14% marks. She obtained M.A. degree from Lucknow University in the year 1984 with 59.04% However, owing to her family circumstances she could not pursue her studies further for a Ph.D. She got a job at Chetna Institute for Mentally Retarded Children, Aligarh in October 1985. She got married in November 1986 and two children were born to her, one in October 1987 and the other in October 1991. Though she was selected for L.T. Teachers Training (English Medium) for the session 1993-94 she could not continue the said programme due to the transfer of her husband. Her date of birth is 1-11-1963 and she has now completed 34 years of age. Pursuant to the prospectus released by the respondent University - Jamia Millia Islamia - the petitioner applied for admission to B.ED.. course as a general category candidate in the language group English for the session 1997-...
Ankush Kansal Vs. C.B.S.E. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)817; 71(1998)DLT450; 1998(44)DRJ360
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners, Ankush Kansal and Rahul Singhal, have filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 1, Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBSC') for withholding their results of Class X examination. 2. Petitioners contend that they had taken admission with respondent No. 2, i.e. Government Adult Senior Secondary School, Krishna Nagar, Jheel Khuranja in the academic year 1996-97. Petitioners had applied for appear-ing in Class X examination conducted by the CBSE. After completion of all regular formalities and deposit of requisite fee, 'admit cards' were issued to the petitioners and were assigned roll numbers. 3. Petitioners appeared in all the five papers, as per the schedule given in the admit cards and were hopeful of securing good marks in the examina-tion and getting admission in a good school. To their utter dismay, the CBSE declared the result of Class X examination on 3.6.1997, but the result of the ...
Manoj Kumar Vs. Jamia Millia University
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)148; 1998(44)DRJ26
Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) The Petitioner is a student of First Year B.A. (Hon.) Political Science in the Jamia Millia Islamia a Central University established by the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. The Petitioner Challenges Annexure-D notification, dated 3.10.97 by which his admission to First year B.A. (Hon.) course was cancelled by the First respondent Jamia Millia Islamia.(2) According to the petitioner, he applied for admission to First Year B.A. (Hon.) Political Science course in Jamia Millia Islamia during 1997-98. He appeared in the Entrance Test and in the Interview and topped both in the Entrance Test and in the Interview. He was selected for admission and was allowed to deposit the admission fee on 6.10.1997. He was admitted to the course with effect from 20.10.1997 as evidenced by Annexure B admission slip. He deposited necessary fees for issuing the identity card on 27th October, 1997 and the identity card was delivered to him on 5th November, 1997 as evidenced by Annexure C. I...
Nalini Dutta Vs. Naginder Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ404B; (1998)118PLR13
Manmohan Sarin, J.1.This revision petition is directed against an order dated 29.3.1995, passed by the learned Civil Judge, rejecting the plaintiff/petitioner's application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, for amendment of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge has declined the amendment application, finding the same to be highly belated and an abuse of legal process. The learned Civil Judge also took note of the pleadings between the parties in relation to other litigation and the position taken there by the plaintiff as being contrary to the amendment sought by the plaintiff/petitioner. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition may be briefly noted: (i) The plaintiff/petitioner in October, 1989 filed a suit of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner without due process of law from premised bearing No. 198/35-B, 1st Floor, Ramesh Market, near East of Kailash, New Delhi, as shown red in the site plan at-tached. Furth...
Mahender Singh Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)Crimes338; 71(1998)DLT50; 1998(44)DRJ185
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) This case too relates to the riots of 1984 witnessing large scale killings of innocent members of a minority community in the wake of assassination of the then Prime Minister of the country. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 29th August, 1996 held that prima facie case for framing of charges was made out against all the accused persons including the two petitioners before me namely Dr. Mahender Singh Yadav and Satbir Singh. Consequently charges were framed against all the accused persons (including the petitioners) under sections 143/147/148/149/201/302/435/436/445/395 and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, however, feel that no prima facie case is actually made out for framing of those charges. Hence this revision petition by them. (2) MR.SONI who appeared for the petitioners drew my attention to the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 and contended that none of them had said a word against the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »