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.
Harnarayan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)122; 78(1999)DLT226; [1999(82)FLR243]; (1999)IILLJ679Del
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal by the court martial. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as Sepoy and he was working as domestic orderly. Action was taken against him on the ground that he committed theft of steel almirah. In the chargesheet it is not stated from where the petitioner committed the theft of steel almirah. What is stated is 'committing theft of property belonging to the Government'.2. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bishram Singh was that Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 had not been followed and that is a mandatory provision as laid down by the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi vs Union of India and others, : 1983CriLJ647 . That position is not disputed by the respondents but what is asserted is that Rule 22 was followed.3. There is nothing on record to show that Rule 22 was followed by the respondents in this case. What was relied on by the respondents was the sta...
Nishchint Bagga Vs. Goliath Detectives Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)513; 78(1999)DLT432; (1999)122PLR9
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of rent of the license fees/rent/damages for use and occupation of the premises known as 19-E Vasant Lok, New Delhi. 2. The suit was registered by this Court and after the service of summons on the defendants, the written statement was filed During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff moved an application under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In the application it is mentioned that defendant No.1 was a licensee since 1979 in respect of the suit premises. Initially, the monthly license fees/rent was Rs. 3000/- which was later on enhanced by the consent of parties to Rs. 3,500/- per month. 4. The plaintiff did not agree to renew the license with effect from April, 1991. Defendant No. 1 claims tenancy right in the said suit premises and according to defendant No.1 the license executed between the parties was a camouflage and in fact the defendant was a tenant. 5. ...
Ex. Lance Naik Raj Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT250
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner, who was serving in the Indian Army, has claimed disability pension.2. The circumstances under which the petitioner's discharge are stated in the counter in the following terms.The petitioner was wounded in O.P. Riddle on 9.9.1965 while serving with 5 JAT. The result was there was amputation of his right index finger. He was placed in the medical category 'CEE' (temporary) for six months w.e.f. 13.8.1966 which was continued for a further period of six months w.e.f. 21.2.1967. The petitioner's case was reviewed and was placed in permanent medical category 'CEE' on 19.1.1968 and retained in service in sheltered appointment. He was discharged from service w.e.f. 28.6.1970 as sheltered appointment was not available thereafter. He was brought before a Release Medical Board at Military Hospital, Bareilly. The Release Medical Board passed the disability at 1.5 percent attributable to military service. The claim of the petitioner for the disability pension ...
B.S.L. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC874Tri(Delhi)
1. These are three appeals filed by M/s. B.S.L. Ltd. involving a common issue and therefore, they are taken together and are being dispose of by this common order. The dispute is in respect of determining the value of the goods, which were captively consumed.2. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the varieties of yarn manufactured by the appellants are captively consumed in the manufacture of fabrics, some of the varieties are sold by them from their factory. It was submitted that they filed price declaration as required under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. For the yarn captively consumed in the factory, the appellants declared a value arrived at on the basis of cost construction method. According to the Department since factory price is ascertainable, that should be taken as basis even with reference to the goods, which were captively consumed.3. It was contended that difference in the price of yarn captively consumed and sold in the market arises mainly due to three f...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.J. Foam
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT373TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed w.r.t. the order-in-appeal, dt. 23/29-7-93 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Both the sides submitted that the dispute in this case has arisen w.r.t. the waste, parings and scraps of plastic like side skin, back-front cut, bottom skin, top skin, shredable/shreddings and cut pieces of P.U. foam classifiable under 3915.30. The issue is whether this material was covered by the entry 24 of exemption Notification No.53/88 (as amended).3. Both the sides further submitted that the issue is already covered by the Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. Jain & Jayna Foam Pvt. Ltd. - Order Nos. 1257-1258/98-C, dt. 21-12-98 [2001 (138) E.L.T. 1345 (Tribunal)] in which it was held by the Tribunal that such material was covered by Notification 53/88.4. Ld. Counsel further added that he would like to clarify that in this case there would be no occasion for remand as marketability is not in question and a decision on the applicability of the ab...
Cce Vs. Mohta Electro Steel
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC617Tri(Delhi)
2. The respondents herein took a Modvat Credit of Rs. 13,55,408 on 1037.310 M.T. of H.R. Steel Strips. According to the respondent credit was taken on the strength of Invoice cum despatch advices received by him from the Steel Authority of India Limited. However, when the bunch of documents to be enclosed with the R.T. 12 Returns was being taken by the employee of the respondents it was lost on the way. It could not be located in spite of their best efforts. An affidavit was submitted and FIR was lodged in the concerned Police Station. This Modvat Credit taken by the respondents was objected by the authorities below and a show cause notice dated 22.9.1993 was issued by the concerned Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The Adjudication Officer namely, Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi got the verification done and he was satisfied that the goods received by the respondents were duly duty paid, and therefore, he allowed the credit. Consequently, he dropped the proceedings initiat...
Collector of Customs Vs. Auto Cast Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC164
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the benefit of project import to the micro processor which was received by the respondents, M/s. Auto Cast Ltd. by way of free replacement in lieu of the micro processor, which was found to be defective at the time commissioning of the plant. The Customs Authorities denied the benefit of the project import on the ground that the microprocessor was imported after the commissioning of the plant. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), observed that the plant was not fully commissioned when the replacement part was imported and that the project import assessments had not been finalised by that time.2. In appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that as the initial setting of the plant was already completed, the replacement parts were not eligible for assessment under project import after commissioning of the plant.3. We have heard Shri S. Ramanathan, JDR, who submitted that the respondents themselves had informed the Department ...
J.P.N. Impex Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC353Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals one by M/s. J.P.N. Impex and the other filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by two separate orders one in the case of M/s. J.P.N. Impex passed by the Collector of Customs New Delhi and the other in the case of the appeal filed by the Revenue passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In both the appeals, the matter relates to the valuation of the poppy seeds imported from Pakistan and also to the contravention of the Import Control Orders. Both the appeals are taken-up for disposal together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appearing for M/s. J.P.N. Impex, Shri S.K. Grover, Advocate submitted that the appellants had imported poppy seeds from Pakistan.They had declared the assessable value of Rs. 8/- per kg. which had been enhanced to Rs. 20/- per kg. by the Customs on the basis of some reports in the newspapers. It was his plea that the suppliers were not related to the appellants, there was no allegation of any extra remittance and that the...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC458Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd. receive in bulk, gums and pastes classifiable under sub-headings 3505.90 and 3506.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from M/s. Mihir Industries. They repack the said gums and pastes into smaller containers, affix the label "Camel" and supply them to the dealers of M/s. Camlin Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue Authorities demanded duty from M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd. holding that they were manufacturing adhesive gums and pastes. Under the impugned order, Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat quashed the demand. He held that the gums and pastes in question are actually manufactured by M/s. Mihir Industries and that M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt.Ltd. were only repacking into smaller marketable containers. He held that definition of manufacture contained in Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not permit repacking to be treated as manufacture, attracting levy of Central Excise Duty. He also noted that the relevant chapter and heading did not cont...
Coir Cushion P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC181Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals arising out of a common order-in-original dated 14-2-1995, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 is available in respect of latex mix manufactured by M/s. Coir Cushion Pvt. Ltd. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Coir Cushions Pvt. Ltd. manufactured Coir product, such as rubberised coir mattresses, cushions, etc., from latex, coir fibre, accelerator and baking agents.They were manufacturing latex mix which was used captively by them without payment of central excise duty. This latex mix was sprayed on the coir fibre sheets which got rubberised by this process. The Collector Central Excise, under the impugned order, confirmed the demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 97,61,324/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakh on the appellant company and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri M.K. Agarwal, Managing Director of the appellant company, holding that latex mix was nothing but compounded rubber classifia...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »