Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rolls Prints (Packaging) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT712TriDel
1. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 9-6-1993 allowing M/s. Rolls Prints (Packaging) Ltd. The removal of inputs under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules for further processing to the Job workers.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Respondents avail of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. They sought permission under Rule 57F(2) to send Printed Paper/Paper Board to job work for carrying out the process of cutting and creasing, stripping and gluing. The Assistant Collector under letter dated 24-9-1992 rejected the permission on the ground that according to Rule 57F(2), the goods resulting at job worker's premises should be returned to the Applicant's factory for further use in the manufacture of the final product; that the final product namely printed shell came into existence at job worker's premises; that inspection, counting and packing at the appellant's premises did not amount t...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT650TriDel
1. The issue involved in all these three appeals arising out of a common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is the availability of exemption in terms of SI. No. 39 of Notification No. 53/88 and Sl. No. 37 of Notification No. 14/92 to Dobby Cards manufactured by the appellants herein, and used by them for getting designs on the cards Dobby Cards are fixed in the looms and the cards are required for the weaving of fabrics as per designs punched on the cards.2. The lower Appellate authority has denied the benefit of exemption under the notification on the ground that the condition prescribed against Sl. No. 39 of the Notification 53/88 and Sl. No. 37 of Notification No. 14/92 has not been satisfied by the appellants in as much as, the appellants are manufacturing the Dobby Cards out of films under CET sub-heading 39.20 while the relevant Sl. Nos. of the two notifications stipulate that the raw material out of which the goods for which the benefit is being c...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sohan Lal Chajjan Mal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)70ITD364(Delhi)
1. This is revenue's appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Faridabad dated 20-7-1992 relating to Assessment year 1989-90 and the revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal in ITA No. 7023 (Del.) 92 as under :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in :- (1) restricting the profit of the assessee under the head suppressed profit from Rs. 1,91,260 to Rs. 5,240; (2) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,69,360 on account of unexplained investment." "1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground No. 1 of the appellant that the asstt. order was illegal and against the provisions of law and holding that the order of the Assessing Officer is not invalid or without jurisdiction. He has further erred in holding that the time limit prescribed under proviso to section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 would have to be considered from 3-1-1992 ignoring the return filed on 30-3-1990. 2. That...
Tag this Judgment!Harminder Kumar (Cap.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)368; 75(1998)DLT597
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in the writ petition the show-cause notice dated 28.2.1984 issued under Army Rule 14 read with Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950.2. The case of the petitioner is that having come to the conclusion that the proceeding with court martial against the petitioner had become time barred, no notice under Rule 14 for administrative action could be issued.3. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences on the 10th of March, 1979 and the 22nd of March, 1979. The nature of offence is not relevant for the purpose of this case to be adverted to. In December 1980, summary of evidence was recorded. In February, 1981, fresh summary evidence was recorded. On the 5th of August, 1981, the general court martial was ordered to be convened on the 18th of August, 1981. On the 14th of August, 1981, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court and obtained orders of stay of court martial proceedings. The grounds stated in the writ petition before the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Chagan Lal Tiwari Vs. Ganga Apartments (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)739; 75(1998)DLT605; 1998(47)DRJ203
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff praying for a decree of declaration declaring as null and void any and all documents including any agreement, general power of attorney executed by defendants 3 to 6 in favor of any third parson including defendant No.1 in respect of plots No.1/50 and 2/71, Lalita Park, Vikas Marg, Delhi. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.3 to 6 from executing and getting registered any document evidencing transfer of their respective shares in the aforesaid plots and also restraining the defendant No.1, its servants, agents from in any manner selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering and parting with possession and/or disposing of the said suit property. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree directing defendant No.1 to render accounts pertaining to the aforesaid plots disclosing therein the amount paid to defendants No.3 to 6 and also money received again...
Tag this Judgment!indra Mehendirata Vs. Raj Mohini and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)892; 76(1998)DLT384; 1998(47)DRJ383; (1999)121PLR10
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.In a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants praying for decree for partition of the suit property and for rendition of accounts, an application has now been moved by the defendant No.2 seeking to examine Sh.K.N.Kaura, the only surviving attesting witness to the will dated 27th may, 1972 executed by Sh.Rai Bahadur Tulsi Ram, on commission. The aforesaid application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 5 CPC. It is stated in the said application that the aforesaid Sh.K.N.Kaura was the attesting witness and is the only surviving attesting witness to the will of Sh.Rai Bahadur Tulsi Ram. It is further stated in the application that Sh.K.N.Kaura had informed the second defendant that it would not be possible for him to appear in July on account of him being too old to travel alone, being 90 years of age. It is also stated that the said Sh.K.N.Kaura talked to the defendant No.2 on telephone and told him that his blood pressure had gone up ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Bhattacharya Vs. Subrata Majumdar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT827; 1999(48)DRJ143
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In a suit filed by plaintiff against the defendants seeking for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction and in the alternative seeking for a decree for damages for an amount of Rs.15 lac, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or otherwise disposing of the second floor of the said suit property and to maintain status quo thereof till the disposal of the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the aforesaid relief on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 entered into a collaboration agreement dated 10.5.1996 to make construction at property No.A-51, Chitranjan Park, measuring approximately 160 Sq. Yds. The defendants No.1 to 3 are the owners of the said property. In the said collaboration agreement it was mentioned that the Collaborator namely, 'the plaintiff would enjoy the exclusive rights...
Tag this Judgment!Kanti Pd. Tibrewala Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT190TriDel
1. The relvent facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The appellants herein undertakes process of dyeing the fabrics. It is the contention of the appellants that the process of dyeing is undertaken without power and therefore these are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 130/82 as amended by Notification No. 54/87-C.E.2. Lower appellate authority has found against the appellants, denied the benefit of said Notification on the ground that the goods after undertaking the process of dyeing without the aid of power are packed with the aid of power inasmuch as the bags in which the goods were filled, were sealed with the aid of power. Apart from that it has also been alleged by the Revenue in the show cause notice that mixing of dyes was carried out with the help of electric stirrer by the appellants and therefore, it was alleged that the power was being used in the manufacture of or undertaking the process of dyeing. Further when a judgment of Tribunal was quoted in the...
Tag this Judgment!Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC174Tri(Delhi)
1. Question involved in the present matter is regarding the classification of an instrument described as "one set of ozone aging tester." The appellants contend that it falls under Tariff sub-heading 9027.80 whereas the Revenue contends that it falls under 9031.80. It is not disputed that if the appellants succeed in their contention regarding classification benefit of notification No. 311/86-Cus. would be available to them.3. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it is necessary to reproduce relevant headings 9027 and 9031 and the relevant sub-headings which are as under:90.27 Instruments and apparatus for physical orchemical analysis (for example, polarimeters, refractometers, spectrometers, gas or smoke analysis apparatus); instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking viscosity, porosity, expansion, surface tension or the like; instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking quantities of heat, sound or light (including exposure9027.80 -- Other instruments and appara...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)177; 1999CriLJ135; 75(1998)DLT461; 1998(47)DRJ495; ILR1998Delhi748
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. Find of a dead body with injuries on the front of the neck, later on identified to be that of Nand Kishore son of Bhagwan Dass resident of B-9/5, Indira Vikas Colony, Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi, from abandoned well situated in the field of Mohan Singh, in Karkardooma required the registration of F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for the offence under Section 302 IPC leading to the filing of charge sheet against two persons, namely, Chander Pal son of Janki Prashad, Kishan Lal son of Shanker Lal (appellants); whereas Brij Bhan was tried by the Juvenile Court and Om Prakash shown in Column No.2 of the chargesheet as a proclaimed offender, resulting into the conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to under go further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the learned Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »