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.
Collector of C Ex. and Cus. Vs. Industrial Oxygen Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT332TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune dated 14-3-1991.2. It is seen from the records that today's date of hearing was fixed in the presence of the learned advocate for the respondents. In spite of it, no appearance has been caused. We have, therefore, perused the records and heard learned DR.3. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents submitted classification list No. 54/88-89 with effect from 8-2-1989 wherein they had declared 'lime sludge' at S. No. 25 claiming Nil rate of duty as per Order No. CH/38/(18) 62/88/12 Ahmedabad, passed by the Assistant Collector and also mentioned in CEGAT Order No. 466/87, dated 9-6-1987.4. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 28-4-1989 was issued to the respondents asking them as to why the classification list should not be rejected.5. In their reply to show cause notice, the respondents stated that the department has not filed any appeal against the orde...
Shri Nihal Khan and (4) ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC385
1. All these appeals arise from common Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs by his order dt. 4.4.1996. By this order, he has imposed the penalties in the following manner:-- _____________________________________________________________________ S.No. Name of the Notice Amount of Penalty _____________________________________________________________________ 01. Shri Achar, Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rupees S.o Shri Sambe five lakh only) 02. Shri Guliya Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Rupees S/o Shri Mangal two lakh only) 03. Shri Nihal Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Rupees S/o Shri Baroch two lakh only) 04. Shri Peerana Khan Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Rupees S/o Shri Haxi Samana two lakh only) 05. Shri Bhoore Khan Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees S/o Shri Roje Khan fifty thousand only) 06. Shri Hayat, Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees S/o Shri Khabad fifty thousand only) 07. Shri Murad, Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees S/o Shri Sheru fifty thousand only) S/o Shri Jinde Khan twenty thousand only)._______________________________________________________...
Apollo Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC35Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order-in-original dated 27-6-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Appraising), Calcutta.2. The brief outline of the case is that the appellants herein, who are manufacturers-cum-exporters of leather goods of various types, Imported 3 consignments of stamping foils and filed 3 Bills of Entry all dated 17-1-1989 for clearance of the goods for home consumption, claiming the benefit of Notification 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985 which prescribes a concessional rate of duty for goods for use in the leather industry.They were asked to explain with reference to the manufacturers' literature/catalogue as to how the imported goods are to be used in leather industry and to substantiate their claim for concessional rate of duty under the said Notification. They failed to produce any such evidence and the goods were allowed to be warehoused under Section 49-of the Customs Act, 1962 as per their request. On scrutiny of the invoice annexed to the Bi...
Bharati Shipyard (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC264Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals arise from a single Order-in-Original No. 38/CEX/1990, dated 7-9-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Pune demanding amounts of Central Excise duty of Rs. 79,857,55, Rs. 5,26,200/- and Rs. 11,43,016.00 from the first mentioned appellant, M/s. Bharati Shipyard Private Ltd. and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the second mentioned appellant, M/s. Travancore Cements Pvt. Ltd. confiscating one dredger seized from them but giving an option for their release subject to payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of confiscation. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. On behalf of M/s. Travancore Cement Pvt. Ltd., learned Counsel, Shri Joseph Kodianthara submitted that they had placed orders with appellant No. 1 for construction and delivery of one dredger and two barges. For the dredger they had paid the price charged including Central Excise duty as shown in the relevant Gate Pass. If, in fact, the...
Collector of Customs Vs. Nimex Trading Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC45Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus., dated 29-4-1987 to the goods imported which were described as "Motor Running Capacitors" (MRC in short). In the invoice, the goods had been referred to as "Ducati Plastic Film Capacitors". Before the adjudicating authority, the goods were referred as "MRC". The Asstt. Collector took a view that "MRC" were power capacitors and as power capacitors were excluded for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 188/87-Cus., the benefit of that Notification was not available to the goods in question. The Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay relied upon his earlier decision and on the basis of the submission made by the respondents M/s. Nimex Trading Corpn. allowed the appeal.2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 3-3-1998. The notice for today's hearing was sent to the respondents on 23-1-1998 and has been received back undelivered by the postal authorities. As the matter is old - ...
Hoechst Ag and ors. Vs. Unisule Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)172; 1998(45)DRJ381
ORDERK.S.Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of IAs 9808/96 & 78/97.2. In is 4949/96 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, the defendant has filed is No. 9808/96 under Section 151 CPC wherein it is alleged that the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trade mark, passing off, copy right and damages etc. against the defendant. By an order dated 12.2.96 defendant was proceeded ex parte on the basis of the service report dated 11.7.95, 28.11.95 and 8.2.96. Defendant was, however, not served with the summons of the suit on any of the said dates and it came to know for the first time on 19.5.96 in regard to the suit having been decreed from a news item in 'Times of India'. Immediately thereafter defendant engaged and instructed the counsel to have the inspection of the record. It is alleged that the plaintiff has taken out execution being No. 149/96 and in case the experte decree is executed, the defendant will suffer irreparable injury. De...
Kohli Motors India Vs. Ms. Asha Menon and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)209; 72(1998)DLT440; 1998(45)DRJ103; 1998RLR308
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner/tenant has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 1.12.95 passed by the Competent Authority (Slum), imp leaded as respondent No. 1, granting permission to the respondent No. 2 landlord to institute proceedings against the petitioner under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for his eviction.2. Respondent No. 2-landlord had applied for permission under Section 19 of the Act on 26.11.1990. The Competent Authority, as noted above, vide the impugned order granted the said permission, holding that the petitioner had sufficient means available to him to take alternate accommodation in the event of eviction from the suit premises.3. Petitioner is a dealer in motor spare parts and carries on business under the name and style of Kohli Motors India. Petitioner is a tenant under respondent No. 2 in respect of premises bearing No. ...
Deepa Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)492; 1998(46)DRJ90
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 1st December, 1993 passed by Mr. S.P. Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara in case FIR No. 67/1989 under Section 332/466-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act). The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows: 2. The Deputy Commissioner-A of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the Corporation) sent 'a complaint bearing No. A /52/89/2032 dated 17th February, 1989' to the SHO, Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi against the petitioner under Section 466A of the Act alleging therein that the petitioner had made certain deviations in the construction of the building in violation of the sanctioned building plan. The property in question where the alleged deviations have been made by the petitioner is B-26, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The police on receiving the complaint initiated investigation into the ma...
Asman Investment Ltd. Vs. K.L. Suneja and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)578; AIR1998Delhi204; 72(1998)DLT286; 1998(44)DRJ791; (1998)119PLR7; 1998RLR297
D.K. Jain, J. 1. This order will dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 13 Rule 2, read with section 151, CPC, seeking leave of the Court to file copies of the Resolution dated 27th June, 1989 and General Power of Attorney dated 10th August 1989, not filed either with the plaint or on settlement of issues.2. The facts giving rise to the application are that the plaintiff, a public limited Company, filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13th August, 1986, which it claims to have entered into with the defendants in respect of property commonly known as 8, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017. The plaint was signed and the suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff Company, by one Kamal Jhaveri in his capacity as the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff, having been authorised to do so by a resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 27th June, 1989. In the plaint, it is averred that under the said agreement to sell the defendant...
Jagpal Singh Aulak Vs. Chattar Singh Aulak and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)128; 1998(45)DRJ365; 1998RLR376
ORDERK.S. Gupta J.1. Plaintiff has filed application under order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC which is being contested by filing reply by the defendants. Since the averments made in the application refer to the plaint allegations and admissions made in the written statement, I propose to straightway narrate the case as set up by the parties in the pleadings.2. It is inter-alia, alleged in the plaint that Lahora Singh Aulak who owned immoveable and moveable properties, died at Sirmingham (U.K.) on 27.9.90 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendants 1 & 2 (sons), Smt. Amar Jeet Kaur, Smt. Ravinder Kaur. Smt. Rajinder Kaur. and Km. Noblojit Kaur (daughters). His wife, Smt. Mohinder Kaur Aulak had earlier died on 26.9.89. Aforesaid Lahora Singh Aulak executed a will dated 6.2.90 which was duly registered at Dehradun (U.P). Under the will he had-bequeathed all his immoveable and moveable properties to the Plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 in equal shares with certain stipulations. It is f...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »