Delhi Court April 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.
Anant Raj Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT419TriDel
1. Common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) dismissing the several appeals filed against the common order passed by the Assistant Collector on the basis of 7 show cause notices is challenged in the appeal. The appellant has filed an application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of the total amount of demand of Rs. 1.24 crores.2. According to the appellant, the demand of Rs. 1.02 crores relates to quantity discount and Rs. 21.83 lakhs relates to packing charges. While the appellant declared minimum trade discount to buyers of a particular number of boxes per month (3000, 10,000, 8000 in different periods), during the period February 1995 to July 1996, appellant had declared an additional discount to buyers who purchased higher quantity (1,00,000 or 80,000) during a period of 12 months. For payment of duty, appellant determined the assessable value as the price less the discount and the additional trade discount. It is p...
Narbada Kannan Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)521; 74(1998)DLT198
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Crafts Teacher in the third Respndent. She was holding diploma of Craftsmanship issued by the Director General of Resettlement and Employment, Ministry of Labour and Employment. In the year 1962 the petitioner successfully completed Vidya Vinodini Examination from Prayag Mahila Vidya Peeth, Allahabad with advanced English as one of the subjects. 2. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 17.11.1962 issued an office Memorandum recognising the diploma issued by the Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth, Allahabad as equivalent to metric. 3. On 29.09.1973, the Education Officer, Zone III (Girls), Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, wrote to the third respondent stating that the diploma obtained by the petitioner from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth was equivalent to metric exam. and the petitioner should be treated at par with metric if she had passed Vidya Vinodini examination before 17.09.1965 with advanced English as a subject. thereforee the f...
Shukla Malhotra and ors Vs. M/S.Vyasa Bank Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)628; 73(1998)DLT124; 1998(45)DRJ504; 1998RLR343
ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. In plaintiffs' suit for: (1) possession of their property, being 1st floor of the premises bearing no.E-34, Connaught Place, New Delhi, measuring 2230 Sq.ft., let out to the defendant bank, vide unregistered agreement of lease dated 1 February 1980 at a rental of Rs.10/- per Sq.ft, initially for a period of five years with option to the defendant bank for renewal/extension for a further period of five years on 20% enhancement in rent, extended in 1985 and 1990, but terminated by notice dated 9 January 1995, w.e.f. midnight of 31 January 1995, and (2) for mesne profits w.e.f.February 1995, the plaintiffs have filed this application under Order XII Rule 6, CPC for a decree for possession against the defendant, directing it to deliver vacant peaceful possession of the premises on the plea that the defendant, in its written statement, had admitted its possession as a tenant and the receipt of notice dated 9 January 1995, under section 111 of the Transfer of Property A...
Meenakshi Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)767; AIR1998Delhi344; 73(1998)DLT141; 1998(45)DRJ472
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Meenakshi, is aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.1996 (Annexure-E), by which the Medical Council of India declined to grant registration under Section 25(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, on the ground that she does not meet the eligibility criteria for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course.2. The other petitioner (Dr. Nitya Nand Ghosh) is aggrieved by the order dated 1st August, 1996 of the Medical Council of India, by which he was also denied registration on the ground that he also does not meet the eligibility criteria for admission into the MBBS Course as stipulated by the Council.3. Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical, thereforee, these petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. Admittedly, both the petitioners got admission in the recognised medical institution after successfully completing the pre-medical examination by those institutions in the then U.S.S.R. The further case of the petitioners is that the...
Dr. Ardhendu Shekhar Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi325; 73(1998)DLT157; 1998(45)DRJ493
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Disintegration and sudden collapse of one of the mightiest powers in the world -- the U.S. S. R. in August, 1991, is the foundation of this litigation.2. In 1991, the USSR suddenly disintegrated and each of its constituent republic declared itself as an independent nation. This was indeed one of the most extraordinary events of the century. 3. This unique historical event which was beyond comprehension has shaken and astonished the entire world. Immediately thereafter, there was an atmosphere which created tremendous uncertainty, crises and turmoil, which not only affected the USSR politically but it had a great impact on all aspects of life in the USSR and even in other countries to some extent. Even in the field of medical education a very large number of students of our own country were seriously affected. Their entire future career and fate had been terribly shaken because of sudden disintegration of the USSR. For sometime, there was an atmosphere of to...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. K.K. Rubber Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT652TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the dutiability of the rubberised cotton fabrics known as friction cloth.It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 9-2-1989 that the friction cloth was classifiable under T.I. No. 19(1)(b) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff; the respondents had captively used the said friction cloth in the manufacture of transmission belting (rubber products). The matter was adjudicated by the Addl. Collector, Central Excise, Delhi who observed that before the commodity was liable to central excise duty, its marketability had to be established and that the unvulcanised rubberised cotton fabrics were not marketable but these were used in the continuous and uninterrupted process of manufacture of transmission rubber belting. As the friction cloth was considered to be intermediate product without any marketability, the demand of duty made in the show cause notice dated 9-2-1989 was dropped.2. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR for th...
E.C.E. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC245
The appellants herein are manufacturers of Glass Electric Bulbs. For the purpose of manufacturing the same, they also manufacture 'stems' which are used as a part of the electric bulb. They were not paying duty on 'stems' inasmuch as most of the manufacture of their bulbs that is, 60 Watts and above, were dutiable. However those 'stems' were also used in manufacture of bulbs of less than 60 Watts. Since the bulbs of less than 60 Watts are exempted from duty, the appellants could not avail of the exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. The stems manufactured by them as a part of the bulbs of less than 60 Watts were therefore, liable to pay duty. This aspect of dutiability of stems used in manufacture of electric bulbs of less than 60 Watts is not denied by the appellants. They have however, urged that with the department's findings to charge duty on stems to the tune of Rs. 24,31,025.80 for the period 1-3-1986 to December, 1989, as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority in the ma...
Paradise Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT488TriDel
The appellants herein are manufacturers of Generators (alternators) and Generator parts, such as transformer, voltage regulators etc. They are paying duty thereon". During the examination of the bills submitted by the appellants along with R.T. 12 return Revenue noticed that the appellants had cleared from the factory the I.E. Engines purchased by them from the market and supplied the same along with alternator manufactured by them. Based on this supply, as aforesaid the appellants were issued 3 show cause notices asking them to show cause as to why the Central Excise-duty amounting to Rs. 1,33,110.60 be not recovered from them for the period of April, 1987 to September, 1990. On adjudication the Asstt. Collector confirmed the aforesaid amount of duty.2. The appellants herein did not succeed before the lower appellate authority. Hence these appeals before us.3. Ld. Advocate Shri Naveen Mullick for the appellants urges that the lower appellate authority has merely gone through the defi...
Urmila and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC252Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Urmila & Co. Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 133/87-Cus., dated 19-3-1987 of the vessel S S Star of Gallice, also called LIA DEE, described in the Bill of Entry dated 31-12-1987 as "Cabin Cruiser-cum-Survey Boat". In the certificate of the British Registry, the vessel had been registered as a "Pleasure Yacht". It was found to be fitted with (1) air conditioned bedrooms, bathrooms, pantry etc. and centrally air-conditioned main and bottom decks; (2) colour television and Video Cassette Recorder; (3) Music System; (4) Bar fridge and fully equipped galley; (5) inflatable skiboat, wind surfer etc. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 24-2-1988 that the vessel imported was a pleasure yacht classifiable under sub-heading No. 8903.99 of the Customs Tariff and was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 133/87-Cus. The appellants had claimed assessment under sub-headi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ralson Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT197TriDel
1. The short question to be decided in this appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Indore is as to whether doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable even in cases where refunds have been sanctioned and paid to the assessees.2. Learned DR, Shri Srivastava submits that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, both in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 [at paragraph 99 (vii) at page 329] and in the case of New Vinod Silk Mills reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 165 that even in cases of refund already made are governed by the decision of the Supreme Court relating to applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment decided in the Mafatlal case. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal allowed. Learned Counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that in view of the judgments of the Apex Court cited above, it would not be open to argue that the doctrine is not applicable in cases like t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »