Delhi Court March 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 Central Excise Vs. A.T.E. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT609TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 24th March, 1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, the mater relates to the classification of the plugs and sockets manufactured from the un-wrought zinc alloy ingots through the process of casting. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, who had adjudicated the show cause notice dated 6-10-1984 had classified them under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise -Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff), while the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held them classifiable under Item No. 26B(i) of the Tariff, with benefit of Exemption Notification No. 180/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984. The respondents are M/s. A.T.E. (Pvt.) Ltd., Ahmedabad, and the Classification List involved is dated 17-11-1984.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 12-12-1996, when Shri P.K.Jain, SDR, appeared for the appellants/Revenue. Shri K.K. Anand, advocate, represented the respo...
Anamed Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT677TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 21-1-1991/ passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, who has confirmed the rejection of the refund claim passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The appellants had imported components for scientific instruments of HPLC system. The components comprises of: 1. Constametric III pump solvent delivery system with dual reciprocating saphire pistons.2. They claimed that these cannot be assessed on merits and that they are specific and identifiable parts of HPLC and that they cannot be used anywhere and hence they are required to be classified under heading 9801 and 90.27.20 read with Notification No. 124/87 and Notification No. 87/88 under which the goods are eligible for lower rate of duty at 40% + nil + 15% (CVD). The Assistant Collector has only dealt with valve and has passed a single line order which is extracted in the impugned order is as follows: "Since the valve is a specific item in the tariff, the classification has b...
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT531TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the Order dated 9-6-1989, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The importer had imported an item described in the Bill of Entry as "Supervac Vacuum Packaging Machine", which was classified under Chapter sub-heading 8422.40 of CTA and claimed the benefit of Notification No.125/86 and Notification No. 87/88 for auxiliary duty. The Assistant Collector of Customs found that the importers are operating in area of drugs and pharmaceuticals and they had imported the goods under provisions of Appx. 6(5) which was applicable to a R & D unit. The claim for the benefit under Sl. No: 19 of the table annexed to the Notification No. 125/86 exempted to Gas and Vacuum packaging system for flexible packages. The body of the Notification also states that it exempt the goods specified in column 2 of the Table hereto annexed and falling under Chapter 84 or Heading No. 39.20, 39.21 or 39.23 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, wh...
Taj Mahal Hotel Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT738TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether item Fuel Injector imported by the appellants is classifiable under 84.06 as claimed by the party or under 84.10 as per the department.2. Heard Shri K. Kumar, ld. Advocate for the appellants and the department was represented by Shri K. Srivastava, ld. DR.3. Originally the assessment of Fuel Injector was made under 84.10.Shri K. Kumar submitted that in view of the internal audit objection, refund claim was filed by the party for re-assessment of the Fuel Injector under 84.06. He drew our attention to the refund claim at page 3 of the paper book in which it was specifically mentioned that refund of customs duty on Injectors paid. He submitted that though the specific claim of the party was with reference to the Fuel Injector, the issue with reference to Fuel Injector has not been dealt with by the authorities below in their respective orders but they have gone into the aspect of deciding the issue of classification in respec...
Birla Cement Works Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)419; 1997(1)ARBLR634(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT519; 1997(41)DRJ377
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 entered into a rate contract with the petitioner for the supply of cement to all the Government and quasi-Government bodies against supply orders placed by them from time to time. The aforesaid rate contract contained an arbitration clause being clause No.25 of the contract between the petitioner and respondent No.l. In respect of the execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties which in terms of clause 25 of the agreement was referred to the sole arbitration of the respondent No.3. (2) The arbitrator appointed was The Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs. After entering upon the reference the arbitrator issued notice to the parties and after hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings and documents filed and relied upon by the parties made/published his award on 30.5.1991. In the said award the arbitrator held that the pe...
Escotel Mobile Communications Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)520; 1997(2)ARBLR33(Delhi); 1997(41)DRJ217
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against the respondents for quashing the Circular No. 842-65(B)/95 dated January 16, 1997 issued by respondent No. 1. The said Circular may be reproduced as follows: 'NO.842-56(B)/95Dated: 16.01.97 To 1. M/s Modicom Network (P) Ltd. 2. M/s J.T.Mobiles Ltd. 3. M/s Escotel Mobile Communications (P) Ltd. 4. M/s Aircell Diglink India Ltd. Sub: Service Area for Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in Punjab & Haryana circles. Dear Sir, Some queries has been raised regarding whether Panchkula belongs to Punjab or Haryana circle. In the above regard, it is clarified that the service areas for Haryana & Punjab Telecom Territorial circles will be the area of these circles as on the date of tender for the service. In the present case, Panchkula being part of Punjab Telecom circle will be included in the service area of licences for Punjab circle. The licensers for Haryana circle are not allowed to operate the service in Panchkula. (KULDIP SINGH) Di...
Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)918; 1997CriLJ3380; 66(1997)DLT870
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal by Sunil Kumar, Satish Kumar, Jal Singh and Ramphal is directed against the judgment dated 24/11/1993'ofan Additional Sessions Judge convicting them u/Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and order of even date sentencing them to imprisonment as under: (I)Sunil Kumar-Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for twoyears. (II)Satish Kumar-Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for twoyears. (III)Ramphal and Jal Singh-Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.3,000.00 each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.(2) Vide impugned judgment and order Satish Kumar was also convicted u/Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he is to furthe...
iitd Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Sirtej Bahadur Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)853; 1997(1)ARBLR663(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT650; 1997(41)DRJ259
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Sirtej Bahadur Gupta has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against M/s. 1.I.T.D. Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. As per him the defendant Society had entered into a contract with one M/s. Bharat Construction Corporation for construction of its Building Complex and the said Corporation, in turn, had appointed him as sub-contractor for doing electrical job. His grievance is that although he has completed the job, his electrical goods and tools etc. worth Rs.l,45,000.00 which are lying in a store, are not being allowed by the Society to be removed. Hence his suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Society to allow him to lift his goods and tools. (2) In response to the summons issued in the suit, the defendant Society put in appearance and moved an application under Order 7 rule Ii of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint on the following grounds: (a) The suit was barred under sections 39 and 41 of the Specific Relie...
Ambika Prasad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2853; ILR1997Delhi609
Arun Kumar, J.(1) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 24th March, 1992 of an Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the four appellants were convicted for offences under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 341/34 Indian Penal Code and 307/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fines etc. under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code besides imprisonment for offences under section 307/34 and 341/34 Indian Penal Code These sentences were to run concurrently. As a matter of fact in all six accused were tried together in a joint trial. Out of the six accused, two, namely, Ram Adhar and Shivraj Singh were acquitted while the remaining four, i.e., Ambika Prasad, Kishanpal Singh, Ram Chander and Rajinder Singh were convicted. These three appeals are by the said four convicts. Since the appeals arise from a common judgment, they can be disposed of by this judgment. (2) At the root of the incident is a dispute about land in village Libaspur Pratap Singh owned l...
Anju Sharma Vs. Suresh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)504; AIR1998Delhi47; 67(1997)DLT127; 1997(41)DRJ577
Usha Mehra, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act) on the ground that since her marriage got registered before the Registrar of Marriage, thereforee, drew the presumption that the respondent did not use force or undue pressure on her in obtaining her consent. (2) Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Adj ignored the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and also erroneously relied on extraneous circumstances. The petition has been dismissed without affording opportunity to prove that her consent was obtained under threat. (3) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant sought annulment of her marriage with respondent because her consent was obtained under pressure, threat and by blackmailing her. The consent was obtained by playing a fraud on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »