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.
Sumer Singh (Sep.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)366; 74(1998)DLT15
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The genesis of the writ petition is the incident that had occurred on the 20th of June, 1994 at Lukret in Sikkim. The main case against the petitioner by the respondents is that in that incident the petitioner put a punch on the back of N/Sub.Pitha Ram Bhakar.2. There are two versions; one by the petitioner and the other by the respondents. For appropriate appreciation of the case, it is better to have the version of the petitioner which is in the following terms:-'That on 20.06.1994, the petitioner along with Sep.Badan Singh and Sep.Dilbagh Singh, all of the same unit were detailed to perform the sentry duties at Lukret in Sikkim. At about 2130 hrs. Nb.Sub.Pitha Ram Bhakar allegedly checked the Sentry on duty. On enquiry from the Guard persons in Gd.Residential Tent, he was told that Sep.BAdan Singh Jat was supposed to be on Sentry duty from 2000 hrs. to 2200 hrs. He accordingly, advised Sep.BAdan Singh to be on Sentry Duty in proper dress and then went away ...
S.S. Mehta (Captain) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)385; 74(1998)DLT42; 1998(46)DRJ617
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated the 4th of August, 1994, wherein the Government of India confirmed the sentence imposed by the Court Martial which is in the following terms:-'SENTENCE The court sentence the accused No.IC-37760A Captain Shiv Singh Mehta of 5685 Army Service Corps Battalion (Mechanical Transport).REspondents (a) to take rank and precedence as if his appointment as substantive Captain bore date the thirtieth day of August, 1983. (b) to forfeit one year service for the purpose of promotion. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE The court being reopened, the accused is brought before it. The sentence is announced in open court, the sentence is announced as being subject to confirmation. Signed at Haldwani this Twenty fifth day of Dec., 1990.'2. The petitioner's case could be stated, shortly, in the following terms:-3. The petitioner joined the Army on the 30th of August, 1980. In the year 1988, he was posted in 5685 ASC Bn (MT). On the night of ...
Devendra Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT128
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.The petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:-'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to _ (A) Summons the proceedings of the DPC which met in June 1990 Along with the record of the petitioner and the persons who were promoted to the rank of Second-in-Command on 3.8.1990 by superseding the petitioner. (B) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the rank of Second-in-Command with effect from 3.8.90 instead of 27.4.1991 and to further promote him to the rank of Commandant with effect from 16.10.1991 instead of 4.11.1992 with all the consequential reliefs, namely, restoration of seniority, re-fixation of pay, arrears of salary, etc. (C) Issue in the nature of certiorari quashing the guidelines date 10.4.1989 to the extent that these have been made operative with retrospective effect.'2. According to the petitioner, he was working as ...
Deepak Industries Vs. Salex Tax Officer, New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)753; 73(1998)DLT719; 1998(46)DRJ208
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of building of bus bodies. It is a dealer registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the period of assessment 1983-84 the returns were filed on 22.3.88. At the time of assessment, the dealer did not produce cash book and purchase vouchers. The Assessing Officer discarded the figure of sales as returned and proceeded to make best judgment assessment.2. As per returns the total turnover was Rs. 56,95,150/-. The Assessing Officer took the year 1982-83 as the basis for assessment, in which year the figure of total turnover was Rs. 98,52,500/-. The Assessment Officer determined the total turnover for 1983-84 at Rs. 1,25,00,000/-.2.1. The relevant part of the order of assessment under the Local Act is extracted and reproduced hereunder:In response to ST 13, Shri Anil Verma, Advocate appeared for the last time with the aforesaid books on 29.3.88. The dealer did not produce cash book. When ...
Mohram Ali and anr. Vs. Rakesh Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC669; I(1999)ACC452; 1998ACJ1043; 76(1998)DLT345; (1999)121PLR3
Usha Mehra, J. 1. The order of the Tribunal appears to be palpably wrong. The petitioners are major and are parents of the unfortunate young boy Phool Mohd. who died in a road accident which took place on 1st February, 1992 with a tempo. While allowing their application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which is a statutory requirement. However, the Tribunal imposed a condition on petitioner No. 1 to deposit his entire share of Rs. 12,500/- in the Bank in the form of fixed deposit for five years. So far as petitioner No. 2 i.e. the mother is concerned, she was directed to deposit in the form of FDR for five years a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of the interim compensation of Rs. 12,500/- awarded in her favour. She was, however, allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,500/-.2. Petitioners grievance is that the direction to deposit the money in the Bank in the form of Fixed Deposit for five years was not called for. Their son d...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bright Engineering Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT885TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 19-3-1991 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. In this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of "M.S. Boxes & Covers for Chokes". The respondents are manufacturing M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes affixing the brand name of the Bajaj and Crompton. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order after relying upon the Trade Notice Nos. 83/87 and 85/87, dated 9-11-1987 and 20-11-1987 of Bombay Collectorate held that the respondents are only manufacturing M.S. Boxes and Covers for Chokes though affixed with brand name are not hit by the mischief of para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.3. Heard Shri D.S. Negi, SDR on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.4. Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that the Trade Notice No.83/87, dated 9-11-1987 and 85/87, dated 20-11-1987 of Bombay Collectorate are not applicable in the p...
Unitex Dyechem Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC632
1. The captioned two appeals arise out of the same order and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods described by them as Sulphonated castor oil. The Appellants claimed classification of the product under Chapter sub-heading 3402.10. The Department alleged that the product was not sulphonated castor oil, but was a surface active agent and classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3402.90. The Asstt. Collector observed that as per Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 34 for the purposes of Heading 3402 organic surface active agents are products which when mixed with water at a concentration of 0.5 percent at 20C and left to stand for one hour at the same temperature, and held that the product manufactured by the assessee was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3402.90 is sustainable in law and thus, the ld. Commissioner Appeals rejected the appeal of the Appellants. Being aggrieved by this order,...
Usha Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT569TriDel
1. These applications have been filed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty confirmed on the applicants herein who are manufacturers of bars, rods and angles falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by denying the Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 and penalties imposed upon the applicants herein for contravention of the Central Excise Rules. Details are as under :- Sl. No. Appeal No. Duty Penalty 2. Learned Counsel Shri Lahoty submits that the applicants have been purchasing scrap from Kabaris and had also purchased old and used sleeper rails etc. of iron or steel which were specified as inputs in Column No. 2 of the table annexed to Notification 202/88, and manufacturing specified final products described in Column 3 of the table and, the department has not discharged the burden of proving that the inputs received by the applicants were clearly recognizable as being non duty paid, and therefore the benefit of Notification 202/88 has wron...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jaipur Poly SpIn Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT265TriDel
1. The captioned 34 appeals were taken up together and heard together and since the issue in these appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals on the ground that the Assistant Collector did not have powers to adjudicate the cases in dispute.3. The short issue for determination in all these appeals is whether the Assistant Collector/Commissioner has powers to adjudicate the cases in which duty is more than Rs. 50,000/-.4. Shri S. Srivastava, ld. JDR appears for the appellants whereas Shri Rajesh Kumar, ld. Advocate appears for M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited in E/608/97-NB. None is present for other respondents.5. The dispute arose as Central Board of Excise and Customs have been issuing instructions from time to time for fixing the powers of various adjudicating authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that in all these cases the duty amount in dispute is more than Rs. 50,000/- and that they...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Titawi Sugar Complex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT750TriDel
1. This appeal from the Revenue challenges the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that Oil seals and Gaskets are capital goods without which the machinery cannot function properly. Shri A.M. Tilak cites the Tribunal judgment (Order No. 646/96-SZB) in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Velahal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is held that for the input to qualify it should specifically satisfy the definition of capital goods as set out in the Explanation to Rule 57Q. He also cites the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd., reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84 (Tribunal) which says that the definition of capital goods under [Rule] 57Q at the relevant time was restrictive. Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate on the other hand relied upon the Single Member judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Uttam Indl. Engg. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 498 (Tribunal) and also in the case of Col...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »