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.
Ram Kripal Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ775
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is employee of Respondent No. 3/Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (hereinafter recalled as 'DCCWS'). He was appointed as Helper on 29.11.66. However, on 4.12.67 he was declared surplus and his services were terminated. He was again temporarily appointed as Chowkidar w.e.f. 21.3.68. Later on he was confirmed to the said post. Petitioner was attaining the age of 58 years on 31.3.98, which is the age of superannuation as per the service conditions of employees of DCCWS. Accordingly, petitioner received letter dated 5.8.98 from DCCWS informing him that he would stand retired from 31.3.98. It is the case of the petitioner that on 13.8.98 Office Memorandum was issued by Central Government raising the retiring age of Central Govt. employees from 58 years to 60 years and as per that Circular, which was applicable to all Departments, Local Bodies / Public Undertakings and Autonomous Organisations of Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, the petitioner ha...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hosak Industries and Plastics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT457TriDel
1. In the subject appeal of Revenue, we are concerned with the question whether the Sandwitch Paper manufactured by the respondents herein is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987. The said notification excludes seven types of products. The last Item No.(vii) reads as under :- "(vii) Products consisting of sheets of paper or paper board impregnated, coated or covered with plastics compressed together in one or more operations." 2. Question to be determined therefore is whether the paper in question is impregnated, coated or covered with plastic compressed together in one or more operations. Both the lower authorities have found that the said paper is neither impregnated nor coated, nor covered with plastics. Two layers of paper are merely stuck together by using LDPE plastic as an adhesive. In arriving at this finding Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the meaning of the word " Impregnate' in various dictionaries as mentioned in para 11 of the impugned ...
Prince Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT463TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Prince Metal Works, the matter relates to the classification of the product 'Dies', which according to the appellants were for internal use. They have claimed classification under sub-heading No. 8207.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and had claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in the impugned order observed that Chapter Heading No. 82.07 covered only those Dies, which were used for drawing or extruding metal. The Dies of the assessee were used in press machines for manufacture of motor vehicle parts and thus, they were not classifiable under Heading No.82.07 but were to be classified under Chapter Heading No. 84.66 of the Tariff as part of the machines.3. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.4. In their communication dated 8-2-1991, the appellants, M/s. Prince Metal Works had admitted that their Dies were not for wire ...
Paramjit Singh Sokhi Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT484TriDel
1. The issue in this appeal filed by Shri Paramjit Singh Sokhi is valuation of Mercedes Benz car and its import without the car being registered in his name for a period of one year or more before importing into India.2. Shri Chibber, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants had imported the car only for 4000 dollars and the car is more than 11 years old and in a very bad condition. The valuation of the Department is Rs. 5,35,858/- which is on very high side and he is not in a position to pay the duty on such valuation. He submitted that if car is examined by an independent mechanic its true value will be known.Alternatively he pleaded that the appellant may be allowed to send the car back to U.S.A. as he is not in a position to pay the duty on such enhanced value.3. Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that maximum depreciation has been allowed by the Department in the valuation of the car. The defects mentioned in the report are not such which warrant further depreciation in...
Jai Parkash and anr. Vs. Smt. Pushpa and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)18; 81(1999)DLT519; 1999(51)DRJ66; ILR1999Delhi145
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th November, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in the Land Acquisition Case No. 140/1990 arising out of Award No. 2/78-79 Village Kondli directing for substitution of the names of the petitioners and also of the respondents in place of deceased Ram Nath.2. The father of the petitioners late Shri Ram Nath was the owner of Agricultural land in Village Kondli, Tehsil Shahdara, Delhi. It is an admitted position that in respect of the said land he was a recorded Bhumidar as the land in question was agricultural land. The said land came to be acquired by the Government under a Notification issued under ections 4, 6, & 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.2.81. An Award in respect of the said acquisition proceedings came to be passed by the Collector on 31.1.82. However, the redecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being aggrieved by the award and fixation of the amount of compensation in...
Anand Darbari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 84(2000)DLT718
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:'In view of the facts mentioned and submissions herein above, it is respectfully prayed that the Honble Court may be pleased: (a) to issue an appropriate writ or order holding the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner vide Memorandum No. 1(2)/97-PE. XII dated 24.11.1997 as illegal, arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory;(b) to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing/ setting aside Mamorandum No. 1(2)/97-PE. XII dated 24.11.1997 Along with its annexures and Order No. 1(2)/97-PE. XII dated 17.7.1998;(c) to issue writ of prohibition or any other appropriate order restraining respondent No. 1 from initiating any further action or proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of Memorandum dated 24.11.1997 and restraining respondent No. 2 from taking any action pursuant to Order No. 1(2)/97-PE.XII dated 17.7.1998 passed by respondent No. 1;(d) to call for the records rel...
Thomson Press (i) Ltd. Vs. Advertising Plus and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT648
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This is a summary suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 6,13,491/- (Rs. six lakh thirteen thousand four hundred ninety-one only) Along with pendente lite and future interest @ 21% till the realisation, and for costs.2. Summons in the prescribed form under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure were issued on various occasions and service on the defendants was finally affected on 17.2.1999. These notices also indicated that the suit would be listed on 24.2.1999 before the Joint Registrar of this Court, for further directions.3. As envisaged in Order xxxvII, Rule 2(3) the defendant was to enter appearance and in default of his entering appearance the allegations in the plaint would be deemed to have been admitted. The plaintiff was thereupon entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as m...
H.S. Chopra Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT290TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 28-8-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi. In the impugned order the Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of car imported by the appellant and gave an option to redeem the car on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is British Passport holder and was residing in England. He submits that in March, 1994 the appellant decided to come back and to permanent settle in India. The appellant arrived in India on 20-8-1994 and brought car of model 1991. Learned Counsel submits that as per Export and Import Policy 1992-97 Indian national or Foreign national of Indian origin while coming to India for permanent settlement can bring a passenger car provided that car has been used by importer for more than one year prior to return to India. He sub...
Goyal Gases Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC157Tri(Delhi)
1. The present appeals arise from Order-in-Original No. 09/Commr/96/ dated 29-2-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut confirming a duty demand of Rs. 8,59,095.87 against the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was also imposed apart from redemption fine of Rs. One lakh.2. We have heard Shri P.K. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR for the respondents.3. M/s. Goyal Gases P. Ltd. Sahibabad, one of the appellants before us, is engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of Oxygen gas classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 2804.11 ("Oxygen in Cylinder") of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants claimed that they are also engaged in trading of gases like liquid Nitrogen, Liquid Argon, Hydrogen, Helium, etc. For this purpose, they buy these gases in bulk and repack them in cylinders.4. By show cause notice dated 6-1-1994, the Department alleged that the activity of mixing of various gases into cylinders result in the emergence of a new prod...
L.R. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC841Tri(Delhi)
1. These three inter-related appeals were heard together and are disposed of by the present order.2. The issue relates to clubbing of the production of three units viz., (a) M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd., (b) M/s. L.D. Industries and (c) L.R. Industries (P) Ltd. By the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune dated 22-4-1991, duty demand of Rs. 14,92,190.99 was confirmed against appellants M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. Penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs, one lakh and Rs. 50,000/- were also imposed on M/s. Supreme Washers (P) Ltd., M/s. L.D. Industries (P) Ltd. and Shri Shyamsundar Raheja respectively.3. Brief facts are : Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Pune visited the factory premises of M/s. L.D. Industries and M/s. L.R.Industries situated at 66/65, Lonawala Co-operative Industrial Estate on receipt of information that the said two units were in fact only one unit and they were availing the benefits of tax exemption for Small Scale Industries which the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »