Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 10 of about 167 results (0.019 seconds)Orient Pre-stressed Products (P) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC466Tri(Delhi)
1. The order-in-original dated 22-3-91 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of PCC Poles was from time to time entering into contracts for supply of the goods to U.P. State Electricity Board and filing price lists declaring the contract prices and on approval of the same, paying duty on the basis of such approved prices. In respect of the period from 1984 to October, 1988 show cause notice dated 19-1-90 was issued stating that under the terms of the relevant contract, the buyer was to pay appellant labour charges for loading of the goods in the trucks for the purpose of transport the goods to the premises of the buyer and the element of loading charges should have been included in the assessable value but was not so included and also alleging deliberate suppression of material facts with an intent to evade payment of duty and invoking larger period of limitation under the proviso to Se...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Controls and Switchgear Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT224TriDel
1. Revenue has sought the setting aside of the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 28-8-1995 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the recovery of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,57,777.53 and redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the respondents by the Deputy Commissioner by order-in-original dated 23-12-1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, however, upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. Shri D.K. Nayyar, ld. JDR submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had based his order on a judgment given by the Tribunal while disposing of a stay application. Since the order relied upon was not a final judgment, the same could not be relied upon as a precedent. He also contended that the Collector (Appeals) has wrongly held that the SCN was hit by limitation since the period of limitation has to be calculated from the date when the goods were entered in RG23A Part I.3. Shri S.S. Mehra, ld. Counse...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kay Jay Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC167
1. This an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals).2. The short pqint to be considered in this case is whether intercoms are classifiable under sub-heading 84.79 as claimed by the assessee or under 85.17 of the Schedule as per the department. The relevant tariff entries are as follows :-"84.79 Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter"85.17 Electrical apparatus for line telephony or line telegraphy, including such apparatus for carrier-current line-systems." The Asstt. Collector as per his order held that intercoms are classifiable under Heading 85.17 as electrical apparatus for line telephony or line telegraphy including such apparatus for carrier-current line-system. Order in appeal filed by the assessee Collector (Appeals) has held that items in question are classifiable under Heading 84.79 following the decision of the Karnatak...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Recondo Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC312Tri(Delhi)
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR for the appellant-Collector and perused the papers.2. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Bombay allowing two appeals filed by the assessee against two Orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Bombay, one approving four price lists and the other confirming demand for a particular period on the basis of the approval Order.3. Respondent entered into contracts with buyers for supply of FRP Fan Blades used in cooling towers and Hub-Assembly for the same purpose and to fit these items in the cooling tower at the premises of the buyers.The four price lists declared the price of the Blades and Hub-Assemblies without including the testing and erection charges covered by the contracts. Show cause notice was issued proposing to include these charges also in the assessable value of the excisable product. In respect of the period during which t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tigrania Metal and Steel Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT710TriDel
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of metal rolls for metal rolling mill, filed classification list No. 145/89 proposing classification under Chapter sub-heading 8455.00 and claiming benefit of full exemption under Notification No. 281/86. The Assistant Collector passed Order-in-Original No. 64/89 approving the classification but denying the benefit of exemption. Demand notice was also issued in respect of the period May, 1989 to September, 1989 and demand was ultimately confirmed by the Assistant Collector by Order-in-Original No. 20/90. The assessee challenged both orders by way of two appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who passed a common order confirming the denial of benefit of the notification but directing that cost of grooving operation on the metal materials would be the assessable value and the cost of metal materials would not be included in the assessable...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ramesh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)42; 1998CriLJ4233; 71(1998)DLT867; 1998(44)DRJ607
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. This Murder Reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the connected appeals arise from the judgment dated 17.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Two accused, the appellants in the present appeals, were charged and tried for the offence under Sections 376/302/364/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ramesh has been awarded death sentence and appellant Sunil is sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 364/34; 376/34 and 377/34 I.P.C. and all the aforesaid sentences made to run concurrently.2. Murder Reference No.2/97 is the reference made to this court by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under Section 366 Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the convict Ramesh, S/o Jaswant. Criminal Appeal No.396/97 is preferred by convict appellant Ramesh S/o Jaswant whereas C...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Roadways Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)519; 1998(46)DRJ276; [1998]233ITR351(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1.By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the assessee-petitioner seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law on a correct interpretation of the decision in : (1987)ILLJ500SC , the Tribunal was right in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine?'2. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessed feeling aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 14.3.1985 preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was dismissed as barred by time, by order dated 9.10.85. The order was communicated to the assessed on 6.11.85. The assessed preferred an appeal to the ITAT on 2.2.93. The appeal was barred by time by seven years and three months. The assessed moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condo nations of delay in filing the appeal. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Baljit Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)541; 74(1998)DLT206
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of discharge dated 22.2.1994 on the ground that the respondent should have passed the order of discharge after taking into consideration the ACRs which have not been considered. The matter was argued before the DB on the 18th of September, 1996 and the Division Bench has passed the following order:-"Petitioner was enrolled in the Corp of Engineer in the Indian Army belonging to the Bengal Engineer Group as a direct entry Junior Commissioned Officer for a contractual period of five years from 1.7.1990 to 30.6.1994. His case for grant of Regular Junior Commission or extension of two years in service was required to be considered by a Board of Officers to be convened at the Headquarters of Bengal Engineer Group and Centre Roorkee in terms of various instructions issued in that behalf. Through letter dated 8.12.1993 Annexure - A, the Asstt. Record Officer of BEG asked the Assistant Garrison Engineer (Independent) Dalhousie; Cantt. to forward ACRs ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Jacob Vs. Ms.Salestine Jacob and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)439; AIR1998Delhi390; 71(1998)DLT810; 1998(44)DRJ645; 1998RLR509
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1 . Appellants are the sons of late J.Massey. They have felt aggrieved for the grant of letter of administration in favor of respondent No.1 by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 1st August,1996. The main cause of appellants' grievance is that the deceased J.Massey never executed the alleged Will. The purported signatures of J.Massey on the alleged 'Will' had been forged, even otherwise the alleged 'Will' create suspicion. It is not a genuine 'Will' because in no circumstances the testator could have deprived his natural legal heirs from inheritance in preference to respond- ent No.1. Moreover, the 'Will' had not been proved properly. Only one attesting witness Shri Dev Raj was adduced, whose statement could not be relied upon. No Explanationn has been rendered by the respondent for non- production of the second witness.2. In order to appreciate the challenge, let us have quick glance to the facts of this Case. Smt.Selestine Jacob respondent No.1 herein w...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Roadways Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Del)54
R.C. Lahoti, J.By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assesee-petitioner seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law on a correct interpretation of the decision in : (1987)ILLJ500SC , the Tribunal was right in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine?'2. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessed feeling aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 14-3-1985 preferred an appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) which was dismissed as barred by time, by order dated 9-10-1985. The order was communicated to the assessed on 6-11-1985. The assessed preferred an appeal to the ITAT on 2-2-1993. The appeal was barred by time by seven years and three months. The assessed moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing the appeal. ...
Tag this Judgment!