Delhi Court May 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.
Neera Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT382TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-7-1997 passed by the Collector (Appeals) disallowing the Modvat credit on different grounds.2. The Stay Application today is posted for waiver of predeposit and stay of the recovery of the amount. However, as the point involved is short the Appeal itself is taken up for decision with the consent of both parties. In view of this predeposit is waived and the stay is granted.3. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that in respect of the invoice Sl. Nos. 3, 6 and 8 of the annexure to the show cause notice dated 30-12-1994, the Modvat credit was disallowed as the date and time of removal of the goods from the manufacturers factory were missing from the invoice. She submits that the initial manufacturer in all these case is M/s. SAIL and in respect of some of the invoices the date of invoice is mentioned, only the time of removal from the plant is not there and for that reason Modvat credit should no...
Raj Kumar Mangla Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR113(Delhi)
1. The petitioner who was heard yesterday on the question of admission, has been additionally heard today on his request.2. We have also heard learned senior standing counsel for the respondents who has entered appearance on advance notice.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by three orders of assessment and rejection of an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, all orders having been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Gurgaon (respondent No. 7), and three appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Haryana (respondent No. 5).4. It appears that on November 20, 1988, there was a search at the petitioner's premises situated at Gurgaon. The matters relating thereto are partly pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax and partly before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in C. W. P. No. 4944 of 1993. So far as the impugned orders of assessment are concerned, the petitioner was issued notices under Sect...
Chanderpal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ566
Dr. M.K. Sharaia, J. 1. The petitioner herein was Charge-sheeted under Section 19(a) of Border Security Force Act for having absented from active duties without leave. Record of evidence was prepared on the basis of which trial by Summary Security Force Court was ordered by the Commandant against the petitioner. After the trial, the Summary Security Force Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to the punishment of dismissal. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed a statutory petition before the Director General, BSF. The Director General, BSF converted the sentence of dismissal passed against the petitioner to that of removal from service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the punishment of removal is not envisaged under the provisions of BSF Act and the Rules framed there under and, thereforee, the Director General ...
Shanti Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT477
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to lay challenge to an order dated 28.4.80 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter the Act, for short), maintained in appeal by the order dated 1.8.94 passed by the Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property, New Delhi. 2. The facts in so far as relevant for the purpose of the present petition may briefly be noticed. The property forming subject matter of the impugned proceedings was as under: ANNEXURE (i) Right title and interest pertaining to half share in House No. 1135, Chatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Delhi. (ii) Amounts due to Smt. Shanti Devi from : (a) Suresh Chand Rajender Kumar, 572 Katra Babu Pearey Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. (b) Shri Ramesh Chand, 5 Hastings Lane, New Delhi. (c) Skytone Electrical (India) Manufacturer of Cables and Wires, 43. Industri...
Harish Ahuja and ors. Vs. C.S. Rekhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT60; 1998(46)DRJ239
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This common order shall dispose of the following interlocutory applications pending in the following suits : S.No 2278/93: Harish Ahuja & Ors.v CS.Rekhi&Ors;LA.No.NatureofIADateoffilingFiledby8853/89o.39R1-2CPC5-10-89Plff-Ahuja8854/89'13.9.93'9779/93'9.11.93'6087/92O.IR.10CPC23.4.92'2072/94'17.4.96'i 3975/96S. 151 CPC21.3.94Sharma(PlffinS.1511/91) 10298/93o.6R.17CPC 24.4.92Plff-Ahuja10494/93'6.12.93'3976/96'17.4.96'S.No.1511/91HarimohanSharmavCSRPoultry&Ors;485/93 S. 151 CPC6.12.93Ahuja.Plff(inS.2278/93)1452/94 O.23R3CPC23.1.93Sharma&Rekhis;2015/94 S. 151 CPC21.2.94AhujaEP NO 32/85 P&S; BANK V. CSR Poultry Farm & Ors A detailed reference to the contents of the applications and the relief sought for therein to the extent to which it is necessary shall be made at appropriate places during the course of this order. 2. There are three parallel proceedings pending in this court in which the same property is involved. Each one has got a bearing on the other. In order to u...
Khem Chand Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT465; 1998(45)DRJ637
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner claiming ante-dated promotion from the post of Senior Pharmacist to Head Pharmacist.2. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Senior Pharmacist on 17.6.1994. The petitioner has filed the present petition on the hope that his writ petition claiming promotion to the post of Senior Pharmacist from a retrospective date somewhere in 1984 would be allowed by this Court and, thereforee, he would be entitled for promotion to the post of Head Pharmacist from a retrospective date.3. By my judgment and order delivered today, I have dismissed the writ petition filed by the present petitioner seeking his promotion to the post of Senior Pharmacist with retrospective date registered as C.W.P. No. 1784/1991.4. As of today, the respondents have not notified the final Recruitment Rules governing policy of promotion to the post of Head Pharmacist. However pending finalisation of the Recruitment Rules, the respondents decided to fill u...
Annapurna Biscuits (Mfg) Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC195Tri(Delhi)
1. The assessee challenges the order-in-appeal dt. 30.4.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Delhi confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Kanpur, approving price list filed by the appellant but disallowing deductions claimed.2. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of Biscuits as job worker of HCPL, filed price list declaring appellant's price to HCPL and when directed to file price list declaring the price charged by the HCPL to wholesale dealers, filed such a price list under protest but claiming deductions on account of average freight, interest on inventories, distribution cost and interest on receivables incurred by HCPL in regard to biscuits sold at their depots. Assistant Collector declined deduction on these expenses on the ground that the expenses were met not by the appellant but by HCPL. This, reasoning and conclusion have been upheld by the Collector (Appeals).3. Appellant could have insisted on approval of the original price list filed based on the Ujag...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vip Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT95TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of travel goods falling under Chapter 42 and polybags falling under Chapter 39. They had cleared polybags on payment of duty even though exemption from duty was available under Notification 53/88. Similarly the respondents had also taken credit on LDPE granules used in the manufacture of polybags which were exempted from payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of an amount of Rs. 31,114.53 in view of Trade Notice No.11/91, dated 11-2-1991 and proposing disallowable of Modvat credit of Rs. 67,958.55 on the granules. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of duty and also disallowed the credit. The Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee accepting their contention that as per the practice during the period prior to the issue of Trade Notice No. 11/91, they were exercising the option to pay duty even in cases where the goods were fully exempt and the withdrawal of the Notice had only prospective eff...
Jagat Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT37TriDel
1. This is a Misc. application filed by the UP State Electricity Board (UPSEB) in the matter of Jagat Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur for impleading, UPSEB as appellant No. 2 in the appeal filed by the Jagat Industries.2. At the outset prima facie, it appeared that show cause notice had been issued only to M/s. Jagat Industries, Kanpur and the order-in-original, dated 11-11-1991 had been passed by the Additional Collector with reference to the said show cause notice, order demanding the amount in question from Jagat Industries, Kanpur and it is Jagat Industries who had filed the appeal before the Tribunal in the above matter. A question had arisen whether the applicants M/s. UPSEB had any locus standi and whether they were entitled to file the present application and pray for impleading at this stage.3. Ld. Counsel stated that it is the UPSEB which had engaged the appellant M/s. Jagat Industries under the job contract and it is ultimately they who had paid the duty a...
National Wire Industries Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT485TriDel
1. These are stay applications filed w.r.t. the Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (A), Bhopal, dated 23-12-1997.2. Ld. Representative of the appellants M/s. National Wire Industries stated that this is a common order-in-appeal passed with reference to the orders-in-original relating to five different parties but involving the same basic issue.3. Out of these the stay applications of two parties namely M/s. Sapna Wire Industries and M/s. Prestige Wires had come up earlier before the Tribunal and they were granted an unconditional stay vide stay Order No. S/32-33/98-B1, dated 11-3-1998 in which each of the parties was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/-.4. It was their submission that theirs is a similar case and in view of the order in respect of the above two parties and the pressure of the department they have already deposited Rs. 20,000/- vide challans dated 12-2-1998 and 28-2-1998 albeit under protest. It is therefore their submission that this deposit may be considered as suffi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »