Delhi Court July 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.
Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC853Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported one Barometeric Condenser and two Jacketed Air Chambers and Diffusers and claimed clearance of these goods as parts of reactor. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 under the impugned order. The ground for confiscation is that these goods are complete machines falling under Heading 8419.89 of the Customs Tariff in terms of the HSN Notes and that licence was required for their import. A penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 has also been imposed on the appellants.2. The appellants have contended in their appeal that the goods are parts of machine/machinery already installed and used in the factory of the appellants and these parts have been imported for replacement of defective parts. They have contended that parts are specifically exempted from import licence under Import-Export Policy 1992-97 pages 672 and 673. The appellants have submitted a diagram and write-up in support of their submission that these goods are functional parts of ...
Anglo Dutch Paints Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT458TriDel
1. This is an order against classification of aluminium paste supplied with varnish under Chapter sub-heading 3208.10 and denial of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 76/86.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paint, varnish etc. in their classification list effective from 1-3-1994 and 1-4-1994, the appellants sought classification of their product under Chapter sub-heading 3212.90 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 76/86, dated 10-2-1986 as amended. The authorities below denied them the benefit and hence the appeal before us.3. Arguing the case Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants have been clearing two items in twin pack. One item is aluminium paste purchased from the market and repacked in smaller containers. The other item is varnish which was being manufactured by them. Ld. Counsel submitted that as no manufacture was involved, duty was not chargeable on the twin pack. Ld. Counsel submi...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Climate Control Services Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT661TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 11-7-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the disinfectors manufactured by the respondents are classifiable under Sub-heading 9018.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 339/86-C.E., dated 11-6-1986.2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the notice. From the record we find that the respondents had filed cross-objection. In this case a show cause notice was issued on 30th August, 1990. Therefore, being an old matter is being taken for disposal in the absence of the respondents.3. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondents are manufacturing disinfectors and marketing as "Oticare Aerosol Disinfector'. He submits that Shri S. Dhaliwal, representative of the respondents gave a detailed description of this product and...
Hans Raj Vs. Shri J.K. Khatri and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)225; AIR1999Delhi346; 81(1999)DLT320; 1999(51)DRJ48
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC) seeks ad interim injunction against raising by defendants of a boundary wall around the colony pocket C-8, Sector 8 Rohini and has been filed in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of flat No. 387, Pocket 8C, Sector 8, Rohini having very advantageous location and abutting and approachable from a 45-meter wide road. The flats were constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') under the Rohini Resdential Scheme and allotment thereof is governed by the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968 (hereafter called 'the Regulations'). The said Regulations provide for constitution of a Registered Agency for looking after the maintenance of common areas and common services in the complex after entering into an agreement with DDA; that no construction could be raised...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)463; 81(1999)DLT493; [1999]240ITR9(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1970-71, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the Revenue:i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 9,068/- incurred by the assessed on the foreign tour of Dr. Bharat Ram to attend the meetings of the International Chamber of Commerce was deductible in computing its business income for the assessment year 1970- 71 ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 65,746/- incurred by the assessed for running the D.C.M. Football Tournament was an admissible deduction for arriving at its profits from business ? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in confirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order in which relief under section 80-J was ordered for the full accounting...
Ramesh Chand Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)63
1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The appellant has been dismissed from service after finding him guilty in a departmental proceeding and he lost in appeal as well as in the writ petition filed in the High Court. The finding of guilt having been based on the materials in course of a departmental proceeding cannot be interfered with. But, taking into consideration that the appellant has already put in 28 years of service and an order of dismissal would be very harsh and would deprive him of the retrial benefits also, this Court issued limited notice as to why the order of dismissal should not be converted to the one of compulsory retirement in the context of facts of the present case. The respondents have entered appearance and field show cause.4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having applied our mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where an order of dismissal sh...
College Section Officers Association and ors. Vs. University of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)503; 2000(56)DRJ1
ORDERK.Ramamoorthy, J.1. There are ten petitioners. The first petitioner is The 'College Section Officers' Association (University of Delhi). Petitioner No. 2 is Delhi University Section Officers' Association. Petitioner No. 3 is Delhi University & College Karamchari Union. Petitioner No. 4 is a Section Officer in College of Vocational Studies. Petitioner No. 5 is a Section Officer in Dayal Singh College, Delhi. These two Colleges are maintained by the University of Delhi with the granting aid from the University Grants Commission. Petitioners 6 to 10 are Section Officers in the University of Delhi. The petitioners had been garnted the pay scale of Rs.650-1200 w.e.f. 19.2.1983. But in the writ petitioner, the petitioners claim that this should have been given w.e.f.1.1.1973. 2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that the Section Officers in the Colleges and the University are equal to the Section Officers in the University Grants Commission and the Union of India. The Sectio...
Okhla Mandi Whole-sale Traders Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Agricu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi374; 81(1999)DLT3
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition has been filed to impugn the show-cause notices dated 19th July, 1995 and 10th July, 1995 which are filed as Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively. The said notices relate to the grant of license under the provisions of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules framed there under known as Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) (General) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The reading of the show-cause notices will indicate that the same were issued in pursuance to the directions as contained in the judgment rendered in C.W.P. No. 72/94 ( Fruit & Vegetable Commission Agents Wholesale Traders Association (Regd.) and Anr. v. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and Anr.) decided on March 16, 1995. Copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Annexure-P4 to the writ petition. The dispute arises between the parties with the issuance of license under...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Del)608
ORDERARUM KUMAR, J.In respect of the asst. yr. 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the Revenue :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 9,068 incurred by the assessed on the foreign tour of Dr. Bharat Ram to attend the meetings of the International Chamber of Commerce was deductible in computing its business income for the asst. yr. 1970-71 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 65,746 incurred by the assessed for running the D.C.M. Football Tournament was an admissible deduction for arriving at its profits from business 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in confirming the AAC's order in which relief under s. 80J was ordered for the full accounting period even though the industrial undertaking M/s Shri Ram Fertilizers worked...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ramdeo Sharma
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1049TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.424/APPL/IND/92, dated 7-8-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore. We find that neither the copy of the order-in-appeal nor the adjudication order was filed by the Revenue along with this memo of appeal. Rule 9 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules provides that appeal memo should be accompanied by the order-in-appeal and the adjudication order. In these circumstances, no action is required on this appeal memo. For statistical purposes the appeal be treated as dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »