Delhi Court May 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.
Pankaj Dial Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT445TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the adjudication order No. 316/91, dated 23-4-1991 passed by Additional Collector of Customs, Import Air Cargo, IGI Airport, New Delhi, the operative part of which runs as follows :- "In view of the discussions above and the fresh evidence submitted by the importers vide the letters dated 29-3-1984 addressed to them, I do not consider any need for interfering in the order already passed by the adjudicating authority." 2. The case has had a long and chequered history. The order passed by the adjudicating authority referred to in the above extract was passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs as Order-in-Original No. 32/83, dated 27-6-1983. By that order, the Deputy Collector held that two consignments of Watch Case Backs and Watch Case Bodies imported by the present appellants had been under-invoiced and accordingly he enhanced their values to Rs. 40,950/- from Rs. 34,117/- and to Rs. 27,293/- from Rs. 22,745/-. Apart from enhancing the assessable val...
G.S. Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)(97)ELT305TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the appellant against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Sub-heading 8708 and bolts, nuts and screws falling under Sub-heading 7308. They availed themselves of the Modvat credit facility. According to the department the description of inputs, their headings and subheading Nos. were not the same as those declared in the declaration made under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The Asstt.Collector disallowed the credit. Aggrieved by the respective orders passed by the Asstt. Collector on the issue the party has filed appeals before the Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) confirmed the view taken by the Asstt. Collector in disallowing the Modvat credit.3. Arguing for the appellants Shri R.S. Saini, Consultant submitted that the appellants have rightly given the description of the final products and the inputs. But instead of declaring the in...
Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)37; 1997CriLJ4357; 67(1997)DLT732; 1997(42)DRJ266
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint against the petitioners under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and for quashing the order dated 4.11.1996 rejecting the application of the petitioners whereby the petitioners have prayed for dismissal of the complaint and levy of fine on the manufacturer of the sampled commodity.(2) Briefly, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 on a sample of 'Tasty Meetha Pan Masala' on the ground of violation of Rule 44(g) and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) as they stood on 10th December, 1987 as the sample contained saccharin to the extent of 4000 ppm which was not permitted at the relevant time under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. After recording the pre-charge evidence, the lower court framed the charge under Sections 7/16 of the Act. During the course of evidence after charge hav...
Gajender Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)582; 1997CriLJ4167; 68(1997)DLT546; 1997(42)DRJ532
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) By this petition, the petitioner has impugned his conviction and sentence by General Security Force Court under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and confirmation thereof by the Confirming Officer.(2) The only reason raised by counsel for the respondent in support of her contention that the order of conviction and confirmation was a well considered order is that the summing up supplied by the prosecutor was considered by them and it should be treated as the reasons for passing the order of conviction and sentence by the General Security Force Court, Bsf who were trying the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and confirmation thereof by the Confirming Officer.(3) I have seen the order of conviction. Counsel for the respondent has relied on Rule 106 of the Bsf Rules, which reads as under :- 106.Confirmation and promulgation : (1)When a confirming authority receives the record of the proceedings of a Court, it shall record its decision thereon and on any sentence an...
Krishan Madan and Naveen Sahni Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT727TriDel
1. By the present miscellaneous application the applicants have submitted that they had made two additional points. These two points 'e' and'{' are reproduced as under : - "(e) Whether or not the burden of proof could be placed on the applicant which could only be done in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, in view of the facts that the seizure from applicant No. 2 was not by the Customs Officers but by the Police Officers. (f) Whether or not the burden of proof be placed upon the applicant which could only be done in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, in view of the fact that there was no seizure from applicant." 2. They submitted that a reference petition was filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Tribunal had given orders on point (a) to (d) raised in the reference petition filed on 6-2-1995. It has been contended that although two points 'e' and '' were raised in the continuing reference application and though there was a mention of all these poin...
Pioneer Alloy Castings Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT72TriDel
1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri P.C. Anand, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that two issues are involved in this case. (i) Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 74/62 as amended or not.2. Shri Anand submitted that eligibility of Notification No. 74/62 dated 24-4-1962 as amended, has been denied by the department on the ground that scrap admixture with duty paid pig iron is used in the manufacture of final products and hence the final products are not manufactured only from scrap. He submitted that Notification No. 74/62 does not specify that final products are to be produced only out of old iron and steel scrap. He submitted that the very issue has come up for consideration before Patna High Court in the case reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 353 with reference to the very Notification No. 74/62 wherein the High Court has observed that "the Notification dated 24-4-1962 being an exemption notification, the same has to be construed, in case am...
Winner Electricals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC669Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported a consignment of Mosilit Heating Elements.They claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 347/86. They had also obtained a certificate recommending grant of the concessional rate of duty from Commissioner of Industries. Their claim was rejected on the ground that Entry 2 of Notification 347/86 exempts Super Kanthal Heating Elements whereas they have imported Mosilit Heating Elements which is a product of Germany.2. Ld. Consultant drew attention to various certificates indicating that both are same and only difference is that Super Kanthal Heating Element is a trade mark of Swedish Company whereas Mosilit Heating Element is a trade mark of a German Company. Ld. Consultant submits that subsequently in 1982, the notification itself had been amended to provide exemption to Heating Element.3. Ld. DR lays considerable force on the argument that the notification has to be interpretated strictly and it cannot be interpretated in a manner so as to enlarge its sc...
Collector of Cus. Vs. William Good Acre and Sons (India)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT267TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal contesting the classification in respect of first item in the Bill of Entry No. 157,"* dated 11-5-1990 viz. 5 Nos.Vat complete without circulation, 1 No. Lab type sample dyeing vat. The same was assessed originally under Tariff sub-heading 7326.90 of the Customs Tariff. The importer had filed refund claim seeking classification under sub-heading 8451.40 read with Notification No.59/87. The original authorities rejected their claim. However, the Collector accepted their appeal. Now, in the impugned order, the learned Collector has discussed as to how the items are not classifiable under Heading 73.26, while giving reasons to reject the classification under Heading 73.26. The learned Collector has not given any reasons for accepting the classification under Heading 8451.40 and also for granting the benefit of the Notification in question. In this Revenue appeal, the Revenue is contending that the correct classification would be only under Heading 73.09.3. On ...
Om Prakash Vs. Dev Raj Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT721; 1997(42)DRJ573; 1997RLR539
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioner has felt aggrieved because of having not been granted leave to defend the petition of eviction filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act).(2) Shri Dev Raj Kohli, respondent herein had sought the eviction of this petitioner from premises bearing No. 5/19, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. The grounds seeking eviction were namely, (i) the family of the landlord consisting of himself, his son, son's wife and son's three daughters in the age group of 21, 19 and 14 years respectively needed better (sic.). The two grand daughters were college going and the youngest school going; (ii) that the respondent-landlord was 73-74 years old at the time of filing the petition. He found climbing stairs difficult. He being quite weak, old and frail found difficult to climb the stairs; (iii) that landlord had been living in a rented accommodation on the first floor of house No. 2046/39, Naiwala, Kar...
Kcv Airways Ltd. Vs. R.K. Blaggana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)31; AIR1998Delhi70; 1997(42)DRJ81
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated December 19, 1996 of a learned Single Judge passed in is No.4782/96 filed under Order xxxviii Rule 5 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code directing the defendants- appellants to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 8.50 lacs on or before January 31, 1997. (2) Facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. Wg.Cdr. R.K.Blaggana, Plaintiff-respondent, filed suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 8,36,049.00 etc. which is being contested by the appellants. In the suit is No. 4782/96 was filed by the respondent and paras 7 & 8 thereof which are relevant read thus:- (3) That it is learnt that defendant No. 2, who runs the one man show of the defendant company and who floated the defendant No. 1 company, is a person of dubious character and has been avoiding appearance before the court and is likely to siphon off all the funds of defendant company to avoid payment of their liabilities towards various ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »