Delhi Court July 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.
Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC527Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 7-5-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, confirming demand of Rs. 10,665/40 under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount was said to have been erroneously refunded to the appellant pursuant to the appellant's refund application. From letter dated 15-12-1986 at page 12 of the paper book it is seen that appellant having paid excise duty under protest during the months April to August, 1997, filed a refund application and when the claim was misplaced, presented a copy of the refund claim on 15-1-1986. Refund was made on 29-1-1986. On 8-6-1990 show cause notice was issued stating that refund was made erroneously and that proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act was applicable, since the appellant did not produce the relevant invoices and as such redetermination of value could not be made accurately. The amount refunded was Rs. 1,42,130.10 out of which a sum Rs. 10,...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bipico Industries (Tools) Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT168TriDel
1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri D.S. Negi, ld. SDR.The respondents were not present, but requested for decision on merits.2. The issue for decision is the classification of articles described as "HSS Patta" (without teeth). The assessees claimed classification under Heading 82.05 whereas the Assistant Collector classified the product under Heading 82.07. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the contention of the assessees resulting in the present appeal.3. Heading 82.05 covered hand-tools and Heading 82.07 covered interchangeable tools for hand-tools or for machine tools. Before the Collector, the assessees claimed that the subjects goods could be used for plaining of wood, for cutting grooves on rubber plants used as a chisel in small workshop or for use as a scraper in tyre industries.The numerous applications in which the subject goods could be used, would itself show their interchangeability. The Collector has observed that plainers and chisels f...
Birla Vxl Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT697TriDel
"3. Ongoing through the case records, it is found that most of the declarations have been filed after a lapse of one month or two months. Some declarations have been made even after a lapse of three months from the date of the receipt of the capital goods. Provisions of Rule 57T(1) are that every manufacturer intending to take credit of duty paid on capital goods under Rule 57C shall file a declaration with the Asstt. Commissioner indicating the particulars of the goods, description of the final product manufactured in his factory and such other information as the Asstt. Commissioner may require and shall obtain the dated acknowledgement of the said declaration provided that where the manufacturer was not in a position to make the declaration and makes the declaration subsequently but within a period of one month or such further pe-riod as may be allowed by the Asstt. Commissioner for a maximum period of another two months from the date of receipt of the capital goods in the factory, ...
H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT717TriDel
1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of glazed tiles. For this purpose they manufacture refractory containers in which the raw tiles are kept for the purpose of baking them for the manufacture of glazed tiles. These refractory containers were initially exempted under Notification No. 221/86-C.E. Later on, w.e.f. 1-3-1987 the said exemption was withdrawn. However excisable goods manufactured at intermediate stage and used captively by a manufacturer for manufacture of dutiable final product were exempted vide Notification No. 217/86-C.E. It so happened that the appellants did not file another classification list after withdrawal of exemption Notification No. 221/86 and on commencement of the Notification No. 217/87. They however, filed a classification list on 1-4-1988 claiming exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. for the aforesaid product, refractory containers. The said classification list was approved on 14-7-1988. Thereafter on 30-3-1990 a show cause notice was issued...
Zahida Begum Vs. Abdul Gaffar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)405; 74(1998)DLT555; 1998(46)DRJ536
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the Order dated 6th May, 1997 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of the respondent/tenant and set aside the Order dated 28th January, 1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which the application of the respondent under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed as well as the Order of eviction passed on 4th November, 1993. The Tribunal noted that the Additional Rent Controller has acted only on the alleged service of the tenant effected by publication in the National Herald on 25th September, 1993 but did not notice that the citation published in the newspaper did not mention that the landlord had filed an eviction case under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nor there was any mention of the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act. The respondent t...
i.N.C.A. Builders Vs. I.A.A.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)602; 74(1998)DLT549; 1998(47)DRJ180
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The award made and published by the Arbitrator in the matter of certain disputes which had arisen between the parties was filed in this Court and objections thereto were filed by both the parties under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. On the said objections, issues were framed by the Court and the evidence was directed to be led by means of affidavits. Both the parties filed their affidavits by way of evidence in support of their contentions and the matter was adjourned for hearing arguments.2. On 11.1.1996 when the matter came up before the Court no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent and the Court proceeded to decide the objections filed by both the parties on merits. While the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed as withdrawn, the objections filed by the respondent were dismissed by the Court by a detailed judgment on merits and the award made and published by the arbitrator was made a rule of the court and decree in terms of the aw...
Hariom Dhingra Vs. the Director (O) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR336]
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner was sent by the employment exchange to the first respondent on the 5th of September, 1987 and an offer of appointment was given to the petitioner as Junior Fitter giving the terms and conditions of appointment. The petitioner had accepted the offer. According to the petitioner, once the offer of appointment had been accepted by the petitioner, the process of appointment is complete and the petitioner must have been taken on duty and that was refused. thereforee, the petitioner had approached this Court. 2. The respondents had explained as to how the respondents could not proceed further pursuant to the offer of appointment. On the 17th of February, 1988, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the petitioner wrote to the Assistant Employment Officer, Delhi stating:-'Please refer to your letter No.ECX/12/87/548 dated 10.2.88 regarding submission of result sheet of the selected candidates. In this connection, this is to inform you that conseq...
Hawa Singh (Ex.Sep.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)74; 74(1998)DLT623; 1998(46)DRJ634
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of certiorary to quash the order dated the 3rd of July, 1997 passed by the Chief Record Officer, defense Security Force Records. The case of the petitioner could be shortly stated:2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Territorial Army as combatant soldier on the 18th of August, 1959. The petitioner served during Indo-Pak military conflict during 1965. He was awarded a meritorious medal 'Samar Seva Star'. On the 2nd of July, 1970, he was discharged from the Territorial Army. He had rendered service for 10 years, 11 months & 14 days. He was re-enrolled on the 6th of November, 1970 in the defense Security Corps. He was discharged there from on the 30th of April, 1974 after having served for 3 years, 7 months & 24 days. The persons who had served in the Territorial Army and the defense Security Corps are granted service pension under Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which would require the qualifying service of 15 yea...
ishwar Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)84; 1998(46)DRJ688
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated the 28th of January, 1994 in so far as the Labour Court did not give the relief of back wages to the petitioner for the period of six years four months and eight days. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were dispensed with on the 27th of May, 1988. The award of the Labour Court reinstating the petitioner was given on the 28th of January, 1994. He was allowed to report for duty on the 5th of September, 1994. thereforee, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to back wages for the period from 27.5.1988 to 4.9.1994 i.e. 6 years 4 months and 8 days. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Sunita Harish, submitted that the Management, DTC passed the order of removal. The Labour Court, in its award, had modified the punishment from removal to stoppage of two increments. The Labour Court declined to grant him the relief of back wages on the ground that the petitioner had ...
Ex. Sq. Leader Anil Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT554
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner was removed from service by order dated the 8th of July, 1994. The order reads as under:'1. WHEREAS. a Show Cause Notice No. Air HQ/21641/16068/P01(F) dated 12 Feb. 93 was served on Sqn.Ldr.A.Gupta (16068) F(P) requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the service under Section 19, Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 17, Air Force Rules, 1969 for avoiding flying duties and showing lack of confidence in flying. 2. AND WHEREAS, the said Sqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068) F(P), submitted a reply to the said Show Cause Notice bearing reference No. 325/ 16068/PF/12 dated 16 Apr., 93 urging therein his reasons against the proposed action. 3. AND WHEREAS, his reply to the said Show Cause Notice has not been found satisfactory. 4. NOW thereforeE, the Central Government after considering the reply of Sqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068) F(P) to the said Show Cause Notice and the recommendations of the Chief of the Air Staff, in exercise of the pow...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »