Delhi Court March 1998 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.
Surjeet Singh Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)906; 1998CriLJ2473; 72(1998)DLT389; 1998(45)DRJ198
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. These are two connected petitions, being Crl. Writ Petition No. 583/97 (Surjeet Singh v. State and another) and Crl. Writ Petition No. 641/97 (Smt. Niyamti v. State and another). The petitioners through the present petitions have taken exception to the externment orders dated April 8, 1997 and March 13, 1997 whereby the petitioners herein were directed to remove themselves beyond the limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said orders. They were further directed by the impugned orders not to enter or return to the National Capital Territory of Delhi within the aforementioned period of two years without the written permission of the competent authority.2. Since common questions of law and fact are to be gone into in both the writ petitions I propose to dispose them of by one and the same judgment.3. Brief facts which led to the presentation of petition No. 583/97 are that a proposal for the externm...
Gorawara Plastics and General Industries (P) Itd. Vs. Deputy Commissio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)329
ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A. M.The assessed has raised the following grounds against the order dt. 2nd Oct., 1991 passed by the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1988-89 :'M That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter called the CIT(A)l erred in not considering the submissions made before him and not giving opportunity if he disagreed with them, thus denying the principles of natural justice thereby rendering the order passed by him as bad in law.(2) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating on account payments of Rs. 5,39,757 as job work receipts from Samtel India ITD.(3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,75,539 out of finance charges paid to Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation.(3. 1) Without prejudice and in the alternative, on the facts and circumstances of the cas...
Hissar Med. Diagnostic and Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT197TriDel
1. After hearing for some time with reference to the stay applications filed by the applicants, we felt that the main matter itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, amount required to be deposited for hearing the appeals is dispensed with and the main matter was taken up for regular hearing.2. Shri K. Kumar, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted mat the appellants is a hospital wherein they imported C.T. Scanning machine and claimed exemption in terms of Notification 64/88. The adjudicating authority was not right in denying the benefit. Further, the authority has confirmed the duty of Rs. 79,11,176/- in addition to imposing penalty on the institution apart from imposing penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) on the Director, Dr. Rajinder Mallick. He submitted that apart from the merits of the case, the order suffers from violation of principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as the effective hearing has not been accorded before passing out the order as a resu...
Collector of C Ex. Vs. Godfrey Phillips (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT330TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is, whether the loose cigarettes drawn for test purposes and for research and development within the factory were chargeable to duty at the tariff rate or effective rate under Notification No. 14/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990.2. The respondents, M/s. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., were engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes. In addition to the clearance on payment of duty, they were also drawing the loose cigarettes for test purposes and research development within the factory. Under Notification No.34/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987, the effective rates of duty were prescribed on the cigarettes being cigarettes packed in approved packages. As the cigarettes drawn for test purposes and research development were not packed in approved packages, the respondents were paying central excise duty at the tariff rate in respect of such cigarettes drawn for test purposes and research development. On 20-3-1990, Notification No.34/87-C.E. ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Saru Smelting Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT67TriDel
1. This case was posted for admission since the amount of Modvat involved was Rs. 20,628,00. On examination of the issue and on hearing Shri Kilania, ld. D.R. for the Revenue and Shri Surinder Mallik, ld.Advocate for the respondents, the appeal was admitted for hearing and taken up for final disposal.2. The respondent assessees had taken Modvat credit of the C.V. duty paid on goods imported through M.M.T.C. on the strength of a certificate given by the suppliers. The certificate was dated 26-4-1994. The Assistant Collector, after issue of a show cause notice and after hearing the assessee, ruled that the certificate was not a document evidencing payment of additional duty in terms of any of the notifications. The Collector (Appeals) in his order held that such certificate issued by the PSU like M.M.T.C. would be admissible for Modvat purposes in terms of Notification 16/94-C.E. He, further, observed that the same authority had accepted the same certificate issued by the same agency at...
O.P. Chirania Vs. Dir. of Lotteries and Deputy Secretary to the Govt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)197; 1998(46)DRJ537
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J:1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal complaint No. 289/1 of 1996 pending before Shri V.K. Maheshwari, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. 2. Shri Gauri Shankar Mittal and the two petitioners, namely, Shri O.P. Chirania and Shri Binod Kumar Chirania, are the partners of M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates, respondent No.3 (for short 'the firm') having its branch offices in New Delhi and Patna and Head Office at Calcutta. The firm is doing a lottery business. In 1992 the State of Haryana was running seven weekly lotteries namely, Jai Durga, Mahadev, Hari Om, Jai Vishnu, Shri Ganesh, Maha Laxmi and Mahabali. On June 29, 1992, the Govt. of Haryana, represented by the Director of Haryana State Lotteries, Chandigarh, and M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates entered into an agreement whereby the former constituted the latter as its main stockists of lottery tickets of the above said weekly lotterie...
Satluj Public School Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)467; 72(1998)DLT525
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the Satluj Public School, Ambala Road, Pehowa, Kurukshetra District in Haryana State. It claims to be a private unaided school run by Satluj Education Society (Registered). The only respondent in the writ petition is the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi [for short the Board. The prayers in the writ petition are for a direction to the respondent to affiliate the petitioner school uptill senior secondary level with effect from the session 1997-98 and for quashing the letter dated 3.2.1998 by which the respondent Board refused to permit the students of the petitioner School to take the Senior Secondary level examination in the year 1998.2. According petitioner the respondent vide its letter dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P3) granted affiliation to the petitioner school for Secondary School examination of the Board with effect from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2000. The need for education uptil Senior Secondary level and the request on...
Pooja BhasIn Vs. C.B.S.E. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)725; 72(1998)DLT778; 1998(45)DRJ168
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the Board Examination of Class XII commencing from 16th March, 1998 and also to hand over to the petitioner the Admit Card for such appearance. 2. The petitioner is a student of respondent No. 2 school. It is stated that the Admission Forms of all the students including the petitioner were forwarded by the School Authorities to the respondent No. 1 for allotment of Roll Numbers and issuance of Roll Number Cards. The petitioner received the Roll Number Card in the month of February, 1998, on the basis of which, she appeared in the practical examination held on 10th February, 1998. Subsequently, however the petitioner was informed on 27th February 1998, that the Admit Card could not be issued to the petitioner for the examination commencing from 16th March, 1998. After representing to the various authorities as also after service of a legal...
Kinetic Engineering Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC374Tri(Delhi)
1. Whether the advertisement cost made by the assessee supplied by way of calendars to the Dealers and sales publicity and promotion expenses are to be included in the assessable value is an issue to be considered in this case.2. It was brought to our notice that issue involved in this case has already been covered by the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Escorts Limited v. C.C.E., New Delhi, reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 206 (Tribunal). Shri Pradeep Venugopal drew our attention to para 5 of the said order which is as under:- "5. The next controversy relates to advertisement expenses and cost of publicity materials collected by the manufacturer from the dealers. Show cause notice alleged that during each of the years, the manufacturer collected from dealers a part of the advertisement expenses incurred, the total amount collected during the entire period being Rs. 17,22,375.85. The notice further indicated that this amount includes the cost of publicity materials sup...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT522TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 21-11-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Although the Collector has rejected the appeal but he observed that Notification No. 201 / 87, dated 3-9-1987 exempts printing frames under Heading No. 84.42. The nickel perforated cylinder is covered under this notification and, therefore, it is exempted only from 3-9-1987.3. The Department has come in appeal against the observation made by the Collector. According to the department, whether nickel perforated cylinder is covered under the notification or not is debatable one and it was not for the Collector (Appeals) to make observation that as there was no specific plea by either side on this observation. We also find that there was no necessity for him to observe that nickel perforated cylinder is covered under this notification and is exempted from 3-9-1987. In the view, we have taken, the observations made by the Collector (Appeal...