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.
Mahesh Electricals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT208TriDel
1. The common appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR and persued the papers.2. Appellant manufactures mono-block pumps and for that purpose manufactures shafts, stators and rotors which are captively consumed in the manufacture of pumps. Mono-block pump was at the relevent time exempt from payment of central excise duty, but not stators and rotors.Appellant was paying duty on rotors and stators on the basis of price lists approved from time to time. Notices were issued to the appellant alleging that shaft is a part of stator and rotor and the value thereof should have been included in the value of stator and rotor and since that was not done, there was short payment of duty. The notices proposed demand of differential duty. The notices were resisted by the appellant by contending that shaft is not a part of stator of rotor, but is a part of mono-block and, therefore, was exempt. Overruling this contention, the adjudicating authority passe...
Sarvpriya Chits (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)60ITD674(Delhi)
1. This appeal, by the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 6-3-1995 relating to the assessment year 1991-92.2. The assessee vide application dated 2-9-1996 had required to admit the following additional ground :- "Without prejudice to the ground of appeal raised in the memo of appeal before Tribunal, the loss of Rs. 2,57,407 deserves to be allowed as short term capital loss." The learned D.R. did not oppose this ground seriously. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted.3. The only ground raised in this appeal revolves round the issue whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in confirming the disallowance out of interest loss on chits amounting to Rs. 2,57,407.4. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as found out from the orders of the authorities below, are that the assessee derives income from chit fund business. On an examination of the books of account, maintained by the assessee, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, observed that in the ...
Chander Bahadur Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)353; 1997CriLJ2195; 1997(2)Crimes178; 66(1997)DLT570
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 7, 1995 and October 9, 1995 whereby the convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in order to facilitate the reference) was found guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further sentenced to undergo RI for one month. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts which led to the present appeal are as under : that the appellant had sexual intercourse with Smt. Promila (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) against her will and without her consent on July 2, 1994 at about 9.00 a.m. at the hut belonging to her situate at A-9 Block, DDA Park, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant while doing so is alleged to have threatened the prosecutrix with death also. ...
Chandra Lakshmi Safety Glass Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT44TriDel
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of laminated safety glass of different thickness (i.e. 6.00 mm, 7.0 mm etc.) falling for classification under sub-heading 7004.80 of the CETA, 1985. The manufacturing process 6.00 mm thick laminated safety glass is as under : "One sheet of polyvinyl butryl having thickness of 0.38 mm approx. is placed in between two sheets of plain glass having thickness of 3.0 mm each. The same is then subjected to high pressure and temperature of 55C in Autoclave. The product is then cooled and packed in boxes and the thickness of the product ranges between 6.3 mm to 6.4 mm." Since the appellants were paying duty only on 6.0 mm thickness and since, as per the Tariff, the duty liability is on per mm or part thereof, the deptt. was of the view that the duty was to be paid on 7.0 mm on laminated safety glass having thickness from 6.3 mm to 6.4 mm, instead of duty on 6.0 mm. A show cause notice proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 5,33,323.45 was issu...
Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex., (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC201Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.287-CE/IND/92, dated 29-4-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals). In this case benefit of money credit is denied on the ground that appellants availed the benefit of money credit on the stock prior to obtaining of the dated acknowledgement of declaration as the same is violation of Rule 57-O(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soap covered under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were availing benefit of money credit scheme in respect of specified oils under the Notification No. 192/87, dated 12-8-1987. This notification was rescinded on 25-8-1989. Thereafter as representations were made by the trade and the Government again restored the money credit admissibility for specified oil used in soap vide Notification No. 46/89, dated 11-10-1989. The appellants filed fresh declaration under Rule 57-O of the Central Excise R...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Sewashram
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT116TriDel
1. Arguing the Reference Application, Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, learned DR submitted that the following points of law arise out of the final order of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Sewashram, decided under Order No.A/1930/96-NB, dated 30th July, 1996 - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 726 (Tribunal): (1) Whether permission under Rule 57H can be granted by the Assistant Commissioner for the inputs not lying in the stock and used before seeking permission from the department; (2) Whether declaration filed for a particular brand of goods is valid for other brand of goods and known differently in the trade practice.2. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, learned DR narrating the facts of the case, submitted that permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner on 20-3-1990 under Rule 57H when verification of stock position was wrong and vide Order-in-Original No. 64/91, dated 6-8-1991, he had rectified the same. The learned DR also submitted that under Rule 57-I, the Assistant Commissioner is competent to recover Modvat...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. B.K. Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT735TriDel
1. This is a reference application filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with reference to Final Order Nos. 1487 to 1502/96, dated 4-6-1996, by which several appeals were disposed of.2. According to appellant - Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III, the following questions arise for consideration: 1. Whether Dryer Press felt and Phosphor Bronze metalic wire can be treated as 'input' in terms of Rule 57A read with exclusion clause (i) to the Explanation read with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; 2. Whether the said product fulfils the description given under Explanation to 57A.This reference application has been filed in connection with three appeals, namely, E/601/90, E/737/90 and E/19/91. As per decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Jayashree Timber Products -1993 (66) E.L.T. 329 (Tribunal), the applicant is required to file three separate applications. Shri P.K. Jain, SDR who appears for the applicant states that this application may be taken t...
Bhai Swinder Singh Vs. Ram Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)230; 66(1997)DLT575; 1997(41)DRJ366; (1997)116PLR55
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 8th December, 1993 whereby the plaintiff No. 2 was allowed to withdraw his application for recording compromise under Order 23 Rule 1. (2) From the perusal of copy of the application filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the application was signed by plaintiff No. 2 Srigopal S/o Ram Chand alone and none of the other parties. Order 23 Rule 1(3) reads as under:- Order XXIII.Rule 1 Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim (1)xxx (2)xxx (3)Where the Court is satisfied,- (A)that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (B)that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of t...
Paul Aluminium Manufacturing Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi/De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT671
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned revision- petition directed against an order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 60,00,000.00 by 23.6.1994 to avoid disconnection. (2) According to submissions made by Mr. Sunil Malhotra that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 out of Rs. 8,00,000.00 has been paid. Mr. Malhotra also submitted that the meter was inspected earlier on 15th April, 1991 (Annexure A) and it was found in good working condition. All the three phases were working. The meter was found defective on 9th January, 1992 and it was observed that the consumer meter was recording 67 percent less consumption, due to moving one phase in right direction and stop on two phases. On this basis, it was found that it was recording 67 percent less consumption and it also appeared that it was checked by Accqua Check Meter in the presence of the consumer. (3) In this light, while it appears that there was prima fade evidence indicating that there was something essentiall...
Cmi Limited Vs. Arun Bhandari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 66(1997)DLT655; (1997)116PLR52
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is a revision filed by the defendant-petitioner feeling aggrieved by an order of the Trial Court whereby its application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking an amendment in the written statement has been directed to be rejected. (2) It is a landlord-tenant suit. The tenancy is not governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. On 11.3.89, the plaintiff served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of .the defendant. In the month of August, 1989 the suit for ejectment was filed. The written statement was filed in October, 1990. In August, 1996, i.e. after a lapse of about six years from the date of filing of the original written statement, the application for amendment has been moved. The plaintiff is in the witness box and has been examined in chief. (3) By the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code the defendant- petitioner proposes to add several paragraphs in the wr...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »