Delhi Court February 1999 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.
Mistry Prabhudas Manji Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT136TriDel
1. In the impugned order, the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) had held that bus bars manufactured by the appellants cannot be termed as copper in crude form and hence it cannot be exempted under this notification. He also held that Notification No. 74/65 exempts the manufacturers of copper that is to say, sheets, strips and coils in any form or size falling under sub-heading (ii) of T.I. 26A. He also held that the item manufactured by the appellants cannot be called coil as defined in explanation VIII to T.I. 26A. He concluded that the products manufactured by the appellants cannot be classified under T.I. 26A(i) and 26A(ii). He, therefore, rejected the appeals. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal before us.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture copper bus bars and copper flexible bus bars and claimed classification under TI 26A(i) for bus bars and under T.I. 26A(ii) for flexible bus bars. They also claimed exempti...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shreyans Spg. Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC488
1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 29-1-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22-2-1993, the excisable goods belonging to the respondents were seized by the revenue authorities and the goods were provisionally released on payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 56,160/- alongwith furnishing of a bond of Rs. 15 lakh with security in the bank guarantee of Rs. one lakh. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original dated 20-12-1993 held that there is no evidence to show that the seized goods were removed without payment of duty and dropped the demand of Rs. 56,160/-. Thereafter, the respondents filed a refund claim of Rs. 56,160/- which was paid at the time of provisional release of the goods. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the claim is time barred. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) v...
Bhura Ram Koli Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT925TriDel
1. The matter is called. None appeared for the appellants. We observe that no notice has been issued to the appellants. Nevertheless, we are of the view that the matter can be disposed of in favour of the appellants on the basis of available records. Accordingly, we have heard Shri A.M. Tilak, learned DR for the Revenue.2. The lower Appellate authority namely Collector of Customs (Appeals) has rejected the appeal as time barred on the ground that the appeal was received in his office on 27-5-1993 whereas the order-in-original was received by the appellants on 6-2-1993 whereas it was contended by the appellants in the CA form that the order-in-original was received on 1-3-1993. The Collector (Appeals) has observed that there is a postal acknowledgement recording the receipt of the order-in-original on 6-2-1993 bearing the signature of the appellant herein.3. As against the above, the appellant has stated in his appeal Memo that he is an illiterate person and he cannot sign. Therefore, ...
Bharat Multifasteners Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC392Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s Bharat Multifasteners involving a common issue and accordingly both of them are being disposed of by this common order.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri R.C. Gupta, advocate, submitted that the main issue to be considered in this case is whether the cost of free supplies to be added to the value of the goods. He submitted that he is not contesting on merits since the issue is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court. However, he submitted that the demand in the present case is barred by limitation as there was no necessity to invoke larger period in the instant case in view of the facts and circumstances. He submitted that the cost of goods supplied free of cost was to be included or not was itself in doubt during that period.The Tribunal has taken a view in some cases that cost of free supplied goods cannot be included in the assessable value. In view of the bona fide impression that the party did not include the cost of goods supplied free...
Sumitra Devi Kochhar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)833; AIR1999Delhi226; 78(1999)DLT26; 1999(49)DRJ318
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The petitioners, claiming to be the executors of the Will dated 1851986 alleged to have been executed by the testator Sardari Lal Kochhar, have filed the present petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (for short the Act) for the probate.2. Petitioner No.1 is the widow and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of the testator. Respondents No.2 and 3 are daughters of the testator. On 1851986, the testator executed a Will bequeathing the whole of his property movable and immovable to the petitioners. The testator died on 681986 and the probate petition was moved by the petitioners on 371987.3. Respondent No.3 has denied the petitioners' case in toto. Respondent No.2 has resisted the probate petition contending that the Will dated 1851986 is a forged document.4. On these pleadings, following issues were framed and my findings are recorded against them for the reasons given hereunder:1. Whether the Will in question has been duly executed? 2. Relief....
Aiims Employees Union and ors. Vs. Aiims and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)866; 78(1999)DLT453; (1999)IILLJ1184Del
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. C.Ws. Nos.456/95 & 4774/94 are by Union, claiming to be registered under the Trade Union Act, of 'C' and 'D' Grade employees of All India Institute of Medical Science. The prayers made therein are to issue directions against the respondent Institute to regularise the employees mentioned in AnnexureA (annexed separately to both these petitions) and to pay salary and other consequential benefits, as admissible to regular employees. 2. C.Ws. Nos.2737/95 and 4474/95 are by individual employees for regularisation of their services on the ground that they have completed 240 days of service. 3. Along with the petition, an application for interim relief was also filed in C.W. No.456/95. On 14.9.1995, it was directed that the individual employees apprehending adverse orders, are at liberty to file separate petitions and that the Association cannot be allowed to agitate individual causes in such writ petitions. 4. During pendency of the petitions, a statement was made o...
Dior International (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Raghuvansh Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ441
J.B. GoeI, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') the petitioners challenge the legality of order dated 25.7.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.) whereby the application dated 21.10.97 of the respondent has been allowed permitting the complaint being continued. 2. M/s. Raghuvansh Enterprises (hereinafter called the 'complainant'), a partnership firm has filed a complaint through, its partner Shri Mohinder Paul Mehra for proceeding against M/s. Dior International (P) Ltd. and its Director, Shri Mohan Anand, the two petitioners herein under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). 3. Aforesaid Shri Mahinder Paul Mehra died on 11.7.97 and an application to implead/allow Shri Ravi Mehra to pursue the complaint was filed. This application has been allowed by the learned M.M. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had made payments ...
Gurminder Singh @ Lalli Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)118; 78(1999)DLT199; 1999(49)DRJ149
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated March 27, 1997 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case are that on December 23, 1996 the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short 'D.R.I.') intercepted a Maruti Car, bearing registration No. DL4CB4104, near Delhi Police check post at Sindhu Border after it had entered Delhi. The car was being driven by the petitioner. Besides the petitioner there was another occupant of the car Mr. Jagdeep Singh, who was found sitting next to the petitioner. Search of the car by the officials of the D.R.I. led to recovery of 4 kgs. and 800 grams of heroine.3. The statement of the petitioner under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was ...
Government of National Capital Territory (Nct) of Delhi Vs. Om Prakash ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)168; 78(1999)DLT221
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition by the Government of NCT Delhi has been filed against the impugned award dated 16th May, 1995. The award grants reinstatement to 2 workmen i.e. respondents 1 & 2. The challenge to the award is founded mainly on the averment that the witnesses of the petitioner had stated that the workmen had abandoned the work and thus the claim for reinstatement warranted dismissal. 2. The evidence of T.C. Sharma, Junior Engineer relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner makes an interesting reading and reads as follows : 'That as per my memory, Shri Om Parkash and Shri Sube Singh were employed as a daily wage workers as per agreed terms and condi tions of employment for specific period on specific wages and for specific jobs on purely temporary basis'. Significantly this stand was not taken in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court on 16th November, 1985. This stand of abandonment obviously an afterthought. Thi...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. M/S. Indian Handicrafts Emporium
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)443
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Following questions of law have been referred to this Court for opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: '1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribu nal was not right in law in holding that the sales effected in India against foreign currency also received in India should be considered as export sales for the purpose of deduction under Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribu nal was not justified in law in allowing weighted deduction under Section 35B on sales promotion expenses of the nature of liquor, tea, coffee, etc.,which are not covered by the provisions of the Act?' 2. As per the statement of facts, the assessed a registered firm deals in ivory goods, jewellery and other handicrafts. Part of the sales for Rs. 8,00,000/ during the assessment year 197677 were by way of export of goods outside India. There were certain other sales in India against foreign cu...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »