Delhi Court February 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.
Hc/G.D. Riazul Haq Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(41)DRJ267
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioners in the aforesaid petitions were in Military Service in the Indian Army, and retired from the service prior to 1.1.1986. The petitioners, after retirement were reemployed in the Central Industrial Security Force on fresh terms and conditions, regarding their pay. These petitioners remained posted on different units and different stations as the members of the C.I.S.F. They were, also reemployed prior to 1.1.1986. At the time of reemployment, there were no conditions attached that the respondents will deduct the Military pension from the pay of the petitioners and, in fact, they were receiving the military pension w.e.f. 1.1.1986. (2) According to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, their salary, pension and allowances were increased. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents by which they are deducting the enhanced military pension and deductions are done from retrospective effect from the pay of the petitioners....
National Textile Corporation Vs. Kamla Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)281; [1997]89CompCas59(Delhi); 1997(40)DRJ763; 1997RLR283
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The respondent under whom the petitioner company is admittedly a tenant, instituted a suit for possession and for recovery of mesne profits/damages etc. In response to the same the petitioner company moved an application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act) alleging that since an enquiry had already been held under section 16 and a scheme was already under preparation or consideration within the meaning of section 17 of the said Act thereforee, the suit was not maintainable. The learned Additional District Judge, however, did not agree. He dismissed the application. Hence this civil revision.(2) The perusal of the application under section 22 of the Act would go to show that the company had challenged the maintainability of the suit only so far as it related to the relief for mesne profits/damages etc. It did not say that the suit for possession too could not lie. I am mentioning this because n...
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Del)651
ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J. M. :This is an appeal by the assessed against the order of CIT(A) III, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yr. 1986-87. The assessed company is a Limited Company but not a company in which public is substantially interested. It continued to carry on the same business as in the past i.e. printing and publishing of magazines, lottery tickets, periodicals, etc.1.1 The first grievance of assessed in this appeal is as under :'That the learned CIT(A) has legally gone wrong in treating a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 as revenue receipt.'This ground was not pressed by the assessees counsel, thereforee, the ground is hereby rejected.2. The next grievance in assessees appeal is as under :-'That the learned CIT(A) has legally erred in not allowing on a sum of Rs. 1,83,217 under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'2.1 The learned counsel for the assessed fairly admitted that the decision of Honble Delhi High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court in the case of assessed is against...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tata Tea Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT262TriDel
1. This revenue appeal is directed against order dated 29-7-1988. The issue relates to admissibility or otherwise of credit availed on aluminium foils used as packaging material for tea.2. Arguing for the revenue, ld. DR submits that aluminium foils are used in the manufacture of tea chest which is exempted under Notification No. 48/87, dated 1-3-1987 and therefore, credit is not admissible.3. Arguing for the respondent ld. Advocate submits that aluminium foils used in the manufacture of tea chest in the factory and instead of putting tea first in the aluminium foils which are subsequently put in the tea chest they lines, the tea chests themselves with aluminium foils and thereafter pack such tea in such tea chest. This make it clear that aluminium foil is used in or in relation to manufacture of tea.4. We have heard both sides. Once aluminium foils are used as a lining material in the tea chest, we do not understand why such aluminium foils cannot be treated as inputs in or in relati...
Adarsh Chemicals and Fertilizers Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT651TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for disposal of the appeals on merits. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. These appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the separate orders passed by the Assistant Collector confirming the demand raised in the two show cause notice.3. Common appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Maleic Anhydride falling under erstwhile T.I. 68 had adopted invoice value procedure under Notification No. 120/75 and was clearing goods on payment of duty on the selling price. Verification of the invoices showed that appellant had charged interest on delayed payment from some of the customers. In respect of two separate periods, notices were issued to the appellants to show cause against demand of duty on the interest so collected. Notices were resisted by the appellant but demands were confirmed by the Assistant Collector and his orders have been confirmed by...
Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT732TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. being aggrieved by two separate orders one passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras in A.No. E/3569/88-B and the other Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore in A.No. E/1136/88. As both the appeals call for decision on similar issues they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras had agreed with the appellant's contention insofar as the bolts, nuts, and screws are concerned. The appellants have sought classification of the bolts, nuts and screws manufactured by them for specific use in the machines manufactured by them under Heading 84.66 of the Central Excise Tariff, and this contention of the appellants had been accepted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). He submitted that as no cross objections had been file...
Gokul Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT732TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 12-7-1993 passed by Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad.2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of biscuits falling under Chapter heading 1905 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are registered as Small Scale Industries Unit by Directorate of Industries. They are manufacturing the 'Kalori', 'Family' and 'Britannia' brand of biscuits of the other manufacturers. They were also availing modvat benefit on the inputs under Rule 57G of the Rules and had availed the benefit regularly till 31-5-1992. They availed the full exemption from payment of excise duty up to the first clearances of Rs. 20 lakhs as per intimation dated 31-3-1992, which was completed on 16-6-1992 as per their intimation dated 31-3-1992. They further intimated as per their letter dated 17-6-1992 that they would avail the modvat benefit with effect from 17-6-1992 and...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Himachal Terpene Products (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT131TriDel
1. The correct classification of "terpene oil BP/BPC" arises for determination in these appeals filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh. The claim of the deptt.is that the item is a 'bulk drug' classifiable under sub-heading 2906.90 of CETA, 1985 while the respondents/assessees seek classification as medicament under sub-heading 3003.30.2. We have heard Shri J.M. Sharma, ld. DR. The respondents have asked for a decision on merits.3. Terpeneol is a cyclic alcohol as described in Explanatory Notes to HSN at page 344 and 345 under Heading 29.06 and covers this product.The A.C. had held that classification under Chapter 30 was ruled out in terms of Chapter Notes 2 to Chapter 30 which defines medicaments as goods (other than foods or beverages such as dietetic, diabetic or fortified foods, tonic beverages) not falling within heading No.30.02 or 30.04 which are either: (a) products comprising two or more constitutents which have been mixed or com...
Singhal Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT115TriDel
1. The issue to be decided in these two appeals which arise against the order dated 24-6-1991 of the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad is whether the appellants' product which is a dry distemper, was eligible for benefit under Notification No. 114/73 as amended in force after introduction of the new Tariff.2. The department sought to deny the Notification on the ground that dry distemper is not covered by the description of the product in the main body of the Notification which exempts "All mixtures of the nature of pigments or dry colours falling under Chapters 27, 28 and 32 as the case may be of the schedule and prepared by the admixture of the goods specified in the schedule annexed to the notification, from the whole of duty". We find that in the case of Rako Merchantile Traders v. CCE, Allahabad which is an appeal arising out of the same impugned order as challenged before us today, the Tribunal by Final Order No. 31/87, dated 18-1-1987 had extended the benefit of Notification to th...
V and R Auto Gauges (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(70)LC832Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point involved in this case is Whether Modvat credit is permissible since the Modvat credit availed based on the gate passes which were issued prior to 31.3.1994 but endorsed subsequently. Shri R.L. Vohra, Ld. Consultant submitted that the appellants received inputs on the basis of endorsed gate passes. He submitted that there is no dispute that the gate passes were issued on or before 30.3.1994.However the dealers who supplied the goods have made endorsements on the gate passes subsequent to 30.3.1994. According to the department, Modvat credit is not permissible since the endorsements on the gate passes have been made after 30.3.1994 and as such they are not valid documents authorised by the Board under Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules.Shri Vohra submitted that this objection is not valid in view of the series of the decisions of the Tribunal starting from Moosa Hazi Patrawala v. CCE reported in 1996 (64) ECR 125 and since then, this Tribunal has been consistently ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »