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.
Aval International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC50Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellate filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 27-10-1992 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs.2. The Additional Collector Customs in the impugned order held that Notification No. 117/88-Cus., dated 30-3-1988 provides that export obligation has to be fulfilled in terms of quantity and value both in respect of Import and Export Passbook and confirmed the demand of Customs duty on the unutilised imported mulberry silk.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the case of Pass book licence issued for natural silk in terms of import entitlement the export obligation has to be fulfilled only in terms of value and the corela-tion between quantum of imported input with the quantum of exported goods is not necessary. He relied upon the I.T.C.Public Circular No. 1/88, dated 14-7-1988.4. He also submits that the obligation upon the appellant under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme (DEEC) Pass Book was for export of garments for Rs. 20,0...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Vanaspati
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT218TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal, the Revenue have challenged the decision of the ld. Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh in the impugned order.2. The ld. Collector (Appeals) relying on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Ganga Vanaspati Ltd. reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 456 (Tribunal) held that credit of duty on minor oil should be utilised for payment of duty on vegetable product although the minor oil had not been used as input in the manufacture of the final product.3. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the respondents procured minor oils, took money credit admissible on this minor oil but utilised it during the period 7-7-1990, 20-11-1990 when none of these minor oils were used in the manufacture of V.P. produced and cleared. The Department therefore, alleged that since during the material period, no minor oil was used in the manufacture of V.P., therefore, money credit taken on the minor oils could not be utilised for clearance ...
Phoenix Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT496TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 12-9-1989 passed by Additional Collector of Customs, Chandigarh.2. In the impugned order the tungsten carbide tips recovered from the appellants' business premises are ordered to be confiscated and released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/-. Demand of differential duty was also confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the appellant.3. Brief facts of the case are that Revenue officers searched the business premises of the appellant and 46 bags containing tungsten carbide tips weighing 2298 Kgs. were recovered. Shri C.P. Aggarwal, Managing Partner of the appellant firm made a statement that the tungsten carbide tips were mixed with brass scrap and was imported and hence got cleared as scrap.4. Ld. Counsel appearing for appellant submits that Shri C.P. Aggarwal retracted from the statement on 9-6-1988 and submitted to the Revenue authority that the goods were locally purchased. He submits t...
Vansh Bahadur Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3582; 75(1998)DLT83; 1998RLR489
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the anticipatory bail application to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner company is involved in cheating to the tune of rupees two to four crores of rupees. Hundreds of small investors who had deposited their life time savings were defrauded. The learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly mentioned that the petitioner is the Managing Director and his wife are sons are the director of the company. The company is more like a family owned concern. 500 to 600 cheques have already been dishonoured because no amount is lying in the bank accounts of the company. On these considerations, the anticipatory bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. On 4th May, 1998, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner had stated before this Court, on instructions, that the petitioner had no intention of cheating any of the investors and even now he is willing t...
Bishamber Nath Sachdeva Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR341]
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The order dated the 14th of September, 1978 passed by the Commissioner, MCD dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated the 18th of July, 1980 and the order dated the 24th of January, 1981(order in appeal) are challenged. The facts necessary to be noticed are: 2. The petitioner joined the services of the then Municipal Committee on the 14th of May, 1957 as a peon. He was confirmed as such and he was trans-ferred to the service of the Delhi Terminal Tax Agency in November, 1957. Subsequently, he was promoted as Terminal Tax Clerk. The Municipal Committee was abolished and became Delhi Municipal Corporation under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 which came into force on the 28th of December, 1957. The petitioner was working at Tikri Kalan Terminal Tax Post and while he was working on that post, on 8th of September, 1978 a surprise raid was conducted by the Vigilance Inspector. On checking, the petitioner was found possessing Rs.53.97 in e...
Darshan Pal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT806; 1998(46)DRJ274; (1998)120PLR24
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This petition filed by a consignee of a consignment of coal seeks to lay challenge to the recovery of freight and penal charges levied and sought to be recovered by reference to Rule 161-A of the IRCA and Rule 3 of Railways (Punitive Charges for Overloading of Wagons) Rule 1990. Challenge is laid to the virus of the Rule also. A number of petitions were filed raising similar issues. One of such petitions was transferred by the Supreme Court of India to itself and registered as TC No. 47/97 thereat. It was heard Along with several other matters. The challenge laid to such demand has been turned down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Supdt. NR and Ors : [1998]2SCR1065 . Their Lordships have held that the railway is legally empowered to levy such charges and recover the same even from the consignee. The rule has been held to be intravires. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the present petition does not survive...
Shardendu Vs. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ471Del
ORDER1. Heard finally. Rule D.B. The petitioner seeking recovery of his claims and dues against his employer, the Respondent No. 3, has filed this petition seeking quashing of an order of reference made under Section 17(2) of Working Journalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. 2. It appears that the petitioner was in employment of Respondent No.3. He was transferred from Bhopal to Lucknow. There is a dispute whether the petitioner rendered any service to Respondent No.3 after his transfer to Lucknow. The fact remains that the petitioner preferred a claim before the Labour Commissioner, Delhi. The statement of claim filed by the petitioner is to be found at pages 62 to 69 of the paper book. The petitioner has raised a claim for an amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- 3. Before the Labour Commissioner, the Respondent No.2 did not file any written statement. The proceedings witnessed only adjournments. On December 20,1993, in the presence ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kamet Plastics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT567TriDel
1 In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether Modvat credit can be availed of on the basis of subsidiary gate pass issued by the Supdt. in April, 1994.2. Shri A.M. Tilak, learned JDR submitted that subsidiary gate pass/certificate could be issued by the Supdt. only on or before 1-4-1994. With effect from 1st April, 1994 such certificate was not prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules and as it was not prescribed duty paying documents Modvat credit is not available to the respondents. None was present on behalf of the respondents, though notice has been issued on 29-4-1998.3. I have considered the submissions made by the department. I observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has allowed the Modvat credit to the assessee observing that the certificate has been issued by the jurisdictional Supdt. and the Credit has been taken before 30-6-1994. The benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied to the assessee when he has taken the cr...
Rotomould (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC627
1. The appellants assail the order dated 22-10-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda confirming the show cause notice dated 8-6-1988 invoking the extended period of limitation from 28-2-1986 to 2-2-1988 by demanding duty of Rs. 17,53,307.11 in respect of LDPE moulding powder obtained by pulverizing LDPE granules and imposing a penalty of Rs. 8 Lakhs.2. Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the following three main issues arise for consideraion: smaller size particles/fine moulding powder amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 6 to Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with Section 2 (f)(ii) of the Act? (II) Whether the extended period of limitation is available to the department? (III) In the event of Issue No. I being decided against the appellants, whether they are entitled to Modvat credit against the payment of duty effected on the appellants final products viz. plastic moulded conatiners manufactured out of the plas...
Kamal Kumar Vs. J.P.S. Malik, Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)518; 73(1998)DLT611; 1998(45)DRJ530; [1998(79)FLR965]; (1998)119PLR58
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 31.1.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, holding that the petitioner does not come within the purview of the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, thereforee, he being not a workman, there is no illegality or un justifiability in action of the Management in terminating the service of the petitioner. 2. The aforesaid award was passed on the basis of a reference raised by the petitioner against the order passed by the Management-respondent terminating his services. On the basis of the aforesaid dispute raised by the petitioner, the appropriate Government referred the following issue to the Labour Court: 'Whether the termination of services of Sh. Kamal Kumar is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in that respect?' 3. The case of the petitioner as disclose...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »