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.
Hindustan Sanitaryware Indus. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC220
2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of ceramic sanitaryware falling under Chapter 69 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. For the purpose of manufacturing the said articles they use moulds of plaster of paris.Demand of duty has been made by Central Excise authorities on the said moulds of plaster of paris for the period 1-3-1987 to 28-2-1988 for Rs. 5,79,233.50 but show cause notice therefor was issued on 24-11-1988.Another demand of Rs. 7,09,259.27 has also been made against the appellants against four show cause notices all issued within six months of the dates of payment of duties for the period 1-3-1987 to 28-2-1989.This later demand is involved in appeal No. E/3222/90-D and the first demand is involved in appeal No. E/2163/89-D. It is against the impugned orders demanding the aforesaid duties that the present appeals have been made by the appellants herein.3. Learned advocate Shri B.D. Ahmed for the appellant had made the following pleas: 3.1 Moulds of plaster of paris are not g...
Virendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT410TriDel
2. The importer herein imported certain goods described in the Bill of Entry filed by them under Section 46 of the Customs Act as "complete computer". The goods were assessed accordingly and cleared from the Customs charge. Later on they filed the refund application claiming that the goods, instead of being assessed under Tariff sub-heading 8471.93 should have been assessed under Tariff sub-heading 8442.20 as an aid to printing because the machine is essentially used for typesetting with the help of the said goods. Lower authorities have rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal before us.3. Learned Advocate, Shri N.C. Jain has submitted that they were given a licence for the following items :- He submits that the last item has been purchased by them indigenously which is a printing machine and the other three items have been imported now. He submits that these three items help in quicker and accurate typesetting with the help of computerised system built the...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Wood Polymers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT508TriDel
1. The delay in filing the supplementary appeal arising out of the common impugned order is condoned, having regard to the consistent practice in the Tribunal in such cases, noting that the original appeal has been filed within the statutory period of limitation.2. We find that the issue which arises in these appeals is the excisability of chemical solutions used for impregnating paper and fabric by the respondents herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of paper based laminated decorative boards, paper and cotton fabric based insulating boards and cotton fabric based industrial laminated boards.The respondents prepared two types of chemical solutions, one containing phenol and formaldehyde and the other containing melamine and formaldehyde. The lower appellate authority has accepted the contention of the respondents that the chemical solutions mentioned above are not dutiable because they are highly unsuitable and are not marketable. He has followed the ratio of the Hon'ble Suprem...
T.S. Narayanaswamy Vs. Swayam Sewa Cooperative Group Housing Society
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT687; 1998(46)DRJ362
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of suit No. 638A/96 under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as well as objections vide is 11935/96. 2.1. Relevant facts are as under: Earlier in a reference petition Suit No. 3192/92 under the directions of this court on 2nd December 1992, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Housing Urban Development Corporation appointed Shri M.N. Joglekar, respondent No.2 as an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Shri Joglekar entered on reference and gave and published his award dated 28th February 1996. After filing of the award, requisite notices were issued. 2.2. Respondent filed is 11935/96 raising several objections including the objection relating to existence of the Arbitration Agreement. There was no privity of contract whatsoever between the claimant Prof. T.S. Narainaswamy and Society for the first paragraph of Articles of Agreement reads as follows: 'This agreement made the 7th day of...
Sarabjit Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)513; 74(1998)DLT448; 1998(46)DRJ446; [1998]234ITR641(Delhi)
ORDERD.K.Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), Delhi Bench 'E', re-ferred to this Court the following question of law pertaining to the as-sessment year 1976-77, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for short the Act) for its opinion: 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) setting aside the assessment with the directions to the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment afresh by complying with the provisions of Section 144B?'2. The reference was heard by a Division Bench, but the two learned Judges differed with each other. B.N.Kirpal, J(as his Lordship then was) took the view that Section 144B of the Act being procedural in nature, its non-compliance would result in procedural irregularity, which could be cured from the stage it intervened and, thereforee, the order which is passed while ignorin...
Central Industrial Security Force and anr. Vs. Ms. Shiela Dina Nath an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC167; 1999ACJ339; 1998VAD(Delhi)596; 74(1998)DLT634; (1998)120PLR12
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The appellants have preferred this first appeal against the grant of compensation vide Award dated 7.9.1992 amounting to Rs. 5,83,200/- with costs and simple interest at the rate of 12%, per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 2. Respondents herein and claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal have also preferred cross-objections (C.M.No. 1309/93) seeking enhancement in the awarded amount. The appeal was admitted to hearing on 3.2.1993. 3. During the pendency of the appeal interim directions were given from time to time requiring the appellants to deposit the awarded amount, as well as the amount so deposited, being kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts for the minor respondent and for disbursement to the other respondents. 4. By this order the appeal and the cross-objections being C.M. No. 1390/93 are being disposed of. 5. Relevant facts in brief may be noted. The deceased Captain Ashok Kumar Dinanath, was employed as an Accountant with the Punjab...
Ranjit Verma (Ex.Major) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)676; 74(1998)DLT632; 1998(46)DRJ264
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as Major, was cashiered from service by the respondents. On the 27th of November, 1981, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why service gratuity and death-cum-gratuity should not be forfeited. On the 23rd of December, 1981, the mother of the petitioner gave the Explanationn. On the 15th of July, 1983, the Government of India passed the following order:-'I am directed to refer to letter No.GI/M/42473, dated the 15th October, 1980 from the Controller of defense Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad, addressed to Army Headquarters and to say that after considering the Explanationn dated the 234d December, 1981 from Smt.Shanta Verma replying on behalf of her son Ex-Major Ranjit Verma (IC-16201) in response to Ministry of defense Memorandum No.B/41057/AG/PS4(c)/2007/A/D/(Pension/Services), dated the 27th November, 1981, and having regard to the circumstances leading to the cashiering of the officer from service, the Presi...
K.P. Rawat Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)686; 74(1998)DLT629; 1998(46)DRJ465
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. In the writ petition the writ petitioner had claimed the seniority over respondents 2 to 4. By order dated the 15th of January, 1992, the name of the second respondent was deleted from the array of parties and amended memo of parties was filed on the 29th of February, 1992. Now, the claim of the petitioner was confined as against Shri Yad Ram Singh and Shri Deo Pal Singh. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties for a considerable length of time, and in particular, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length. I had perused the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed by the MCD. 3. The petitioner stated that there was seniority list published in 1986 wherein he was shown above respondents 2 and 3. Subsequently, on the 26th of November, 1985 that had been changed and he was brought down below to respondents 2 & 3. 4. The answer by the MCD is that the seniority list published in January,1982 was purely tentative and no norms were fol...
Ashok Kumar Vaid Vs. the Indian Road Construction Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)957; 74(1998)DLT760; 1998(46)DRJ372
K. Kumamoorthy, J. 1. There are 14 petitioners who are working with the first respondent the Indian Road Construction Corporation Limited. The service particulars of the petitionersare as under:-S.No.Name & Designation Date of promotion as Dy. Manager1.Sh.Ashok Kumar Vaid18.09.1991Dy.Manager (P)2.Sh..Satnam Singh Arora16.02.1993Dy. Manager (P)3 ,Sh.Rajcsh Hari18.09. 1991Dy.Manager(P)4.Sh.Chittcr Sen16.02.1998Dy.Manager (P)5.Mrs.Radhey Dua31.12.1993Dy.Manager (P)6.Sh.Ram Bilas Ram14.03.199Dy.Manager (P)7.Sh.Rama Krishna Varanasi25.05.1992Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)8.Sh.S.P. Gupta25.05.1992Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)9.Sh. Satish Kumar Dareja25.05.1992Dy.Managcr (F&A;/c)10.Sh.Shayam Lal Arora25.05.1992Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)11.Sh.R.K. Arora31.12.1993Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)12.Sh.A.K. Mathur31.12.1993Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)13.Sh.S.Surin31.12.1993Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)14.Sh.Gurcharan Singh02.07.1992Chief Draughtsman2. The main grievance is that on the 10th of July, 1990, the first respondent Corporation, issued a memo gra...
Balkrishna Pen Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT199TriDel
1. Heard the learned SDR in the absence of the respondents (sic) who have requested for decision on merits.2. Issues involved and findings of the lower appellate authority thereon are given below: "I have considered the facts of the case together with records of personal hearing. Though the Respondents are claiming Box stands of different types as correctly classifiable under H.No. 9608.00 as pen holder, it is found that they are not merely pen holders - being more optly designed to be considered as pen stands - but actually designed not only to hold the pen but also for keeping pins, U-clips and exhibiting day and date calender etc. Even in Col. Nos. 2 of C. Lists they indicate as 'Executive Desk stand', 'Calender Stand' etc. In commercial parlance also the items are known by these names and not as "Pen holders". As such these products in question would like out-side the perview of Heading No. 9608.00. The Heading No. 83.04 of GET A, 1985 deals with the miscellaneous articles of box ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »