Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 5 of about 321 results (0.021 seconds)Kailash Nath Singhal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)796
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has been challenging Regulation 33(1) of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regula- tions, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Regulations') as arbi- trary, discriminatory, illegal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It has been the say of the petitioner that the petitioner was appoint- ed as a clerk in the Punjab National Bank in 1960 and while he was working as Assistant Manager in Regional Collection Centre of the Bank in November, 1998 he was charge-sheeted and as a result whereof the petitioner was immediately suspended; that the Disciplinary, Authority, considering the representation, reinstated the petitioner in May 1990 on the same posts of Assistant Manager without affecting salary and emoluments, on the finding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were very minor; that on 21.2.1991 surprisingly the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service without any f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Del)53
D.K. JAIN, J.In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act), at the instance of the Revenue, in respect of the assessment year 1973-74, the Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in law in not entertaining and disposing of no merits the additional ground sought to be raised by the assessed that the surtax payable was an allowable deduction in the computation of income for the purposes of income-tax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessor's claim of loss of Rs. 5,28,475 arising out of revaluation of slow-moving raw material at estimated realisable value 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in computing the capital under r. 19A of the IT Rules, 1962, borrowed capital...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bharat Bhushan Agarwal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT812TriDel
1. Applications for condonation of delay of approximately 13 months have been filed by the Revenue whose contention is that since the appeal against the order passed in respect of one of the respondents namely, M/s. Sat Electronics was filed in time, the present appeals are required to be treated as supplementary appeals and the delay in filing them requires to be condoned in keeping with consistent practice of the Tribunal.2. We have heard the ld. SDR and Shri Chandrasekharan, Sr. Counsel and Shri R.L. Lamba, ld. Advocate. We find that the appeal filed within the statutory period of limitation was only against M/s. Sat Electronics.The present appeals have been filed against different respondents. The law requires filing the appeals against each persons/respondents separately. Therefore, the appeals filed along with applications for condonation of delay are clearly not in the nature of supplementary appeals. Further as seen from the language of Section 129D(1), the order was passed on...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Superfine Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT658TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the service of notice as per acknowledgement record.Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the respondents.The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-7-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff and filed a classification list w.e.f. 11-12-1990 and claimed the classification of the goods i.e. bars below 3 mm in thickness and width below 75 mm and bars below 3 mm in thickness and width 75 mm under sub-heading 7214.90. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents classifying the products under sub-heading 7211.30 and 7211.19 of the Tariff. The adjudicating authority held against the respondents. The respondents filed appeal and vide impugned order of the appeal was allowed. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, appearing on be...
Tag this Judgment!Alaska Exports Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(90)LC593Tri(Delhi)
1.1. The appellants herein imported certain goods. They filed a warehousing Bill of Entry on 25.8.1995. The goods were accordingly warehoused after proper assessment. On 3.11.1995 ex-bond Bill of Entry was filed by the appellants seeking clearance of the goods from the warehouse. On 6.11.1995 goods were ordered to be cleared by the concerned authority. However, the goods could not be actually removed or cleared from the warehouse on that date, Actual delivery of the goods was taken by the appellants on 16.11.1995. In the meantime, by a Notification No. 159/95, anti-dumping duty was imposed on 14.11.1995. Revenue obviously was not aware about imposition of duty because the goods were cleared without payment of any anti-dumping duty on 16.11,1995. Later on a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue to the appellants herein asking them to show cause as to why duty of Rs. 2,55,418 be not recovered as antidumping duty had been imposed on the goods prior to the date of actual removal of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Lal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT515TriDel
1. These appeals are filed against the common impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakh each on Tane Rao Singh and Allar Khan and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Gobind Lal under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-4-1991, the officers of the Customs Department intercepted a truck bearing No. RNQ 5727, which was driven by Chagan Dhan and Tane Rao Singh, alias Tane Singh, the appellant, was also sitting in that truck. On the search of the truck, 1,000 foreign marked gold biscuits weighing 116.640 kg. valued at Rs. 4,22,50,000/- were recovered. Shri Tane Rao Singh, the appellant, in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitted that the foreign marked gold biscuits were smuggled from Pakistan to India by one Pak National, called Alia and this consignment was meant for Allar Khan, the appellant. He also stated that a week prior to the recovery, Alia asked Tane Rao Singh to...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT719TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether benefit of Notification No. 171/88, dated 13-5-1988 is available in respect of waste and scrap of iron, though the waste had arisen out of the goods which were exempted from payment of duty.2. Shri R. Muralidharan, Sr. Manager Finance, submitted that in their own case for a different period involving the same issue the East Regional Bench of the Tribunal vide Order No.l566/CAL/97, dated 19-11-1997 has held that the benefit of notification is available following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries, reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 (S.C). We heard Shri A.K. Jain, learned Departmental Representative, who reiterated the findings contain in the impugned order.3. Notification No. 171/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 provides Nil rate of duty in respect or Ferrous, waste and scrap, provided that such waste and scrap have arisen from goods covered by Chapter 72 and other sep...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. M/S. Marpro Ltd. U.K.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)449; [2001]104CompCas53(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT361
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. The petitioner State Trading Corporation of India Limited (for short 'STC') has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the legality and correctness of the award dated 3.7.1990, in so far as it has disallowed its claims, passed by three arbitrators, namely, Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (Retd. Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India), Chairman, Mr. Justice V.S. Deshpande (Retd. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court) and Mr. A.J. Sear, Arbitrators.2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent by its telex dated 27.2.1987 made an offer to the petitioner to sell 20,000 MT of crude de-gummed soya bean oil for shipment in April 1987 at a price of US $ 328/- per MT CIF one port, Bombay or Kandla. The soya bean oil offered was from USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentine or West Europe including Spain and Portugal. This offer included 25% counter trade commitment. After telephonic discussions, the price was agreed to be US $ 314 per MT and the co...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (Huf) Vs. Precision Steel and Engg. Work ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)843; 81(1999)DLT638; ILR1999Delhi310
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Chequered history of this litigation started when petition was filed for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in 1979. Respondent filed application for leave to defend which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 23.1.1980. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, respondent preferred a Civil Revision in the High Court. The same was dismissed on 8.12.1980. Respondent tenant aggrieved by the dismissal of the Civil Revision by the High Court preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. Special leave was granted to the respondent/tenant. Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Rent Controller in a famous judgment reported as Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Another Vs . Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal : [1983]1SCR498 . The said judgment was pronounced on 7.10.1982. From 1982 till 1994 the parties went on litigating before the Rent Controller. Rent Controller ultimately dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the purpose of lett...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Film Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT899TriDel
1. The appellants vide letter dated 2-8-1999 made a request to decide the appeal on merits and filed written submissions. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 30-10-1992 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise. In the impugned order the Additional Collector of Central Excise held that the product Hypo solution used in the processing of film is excisable commodity.2. Heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned JDR, and perused the appeal papers. We find that the issue in respect of excisability of Hypo solution is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in appellants' own case i.e. Bombay Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, Final Order No. 485/98-C, dated 29-6-1998. In this case the Tribunal had followed the earlier decision in the case of CCE, Bombay-I v. Famous Cine Laboratory, 1992 (66) E.L.T. 235 against which the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as 1993 (66) E.L.T. A91.3. In view of the abov...
Tag this Judgment!