Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 4 of about 143 results (0.020 seconds)Om Pal Singh Ex-commandant (itbp) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)181; 86(2000)DLT474; 2000(54)DRJ920
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was working in Central Reserve: Police Force from where he retired on 31st December, 1996 on attaining 55 years of age after completing 31 years, 9 months and one day's service. He is being given the pension but full pension is not released to him. His contention is that since he had completed 30 years of service before retirement he is entitled to full pension. On the other hand respondents stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that as per the petitioner had not completed 33 years of service, which is maximum service provided under the Rules, petitioner is not entitled to full pension and pro rata pension on the basis of length of service rendered by the petitioner is correct. 2. The question involved is no more rest integra and has been decided by this Court in number of cases and copies of these orders are annexed with the petition. Particulars thereof are as under: 1. Birbal Ram Sharma v. UOI and Others in CWP 935/92 dt. 20.12.92 High Court of Jam...
Tag this Judgment!L.S. Bisht Ex-commandant Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)537; 86(2000)DLT97; 2000(56)DRJ363
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was working in Central Reserve Police Force from where he retired on 31st January, 1997 on attaining 55 years of age after completing 31 years, 1 month service. He is being given the pension but full pension is not released to him. His contention is that since he had completed 30 years of service before retirement he is entitled to full pension. On the other hand respondents' stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that as per the petitioner had not completed 33 years of service, which is maximum service provided under the Rules, petitioner is not entitled to full pension and pro rata pension on the basis of length of service rendered by the petitioner is correct. 2. The question involved is no more rest integra and has been decided by this Court in number of cases and copies of these orders are annexed with the petition. Particulars thereof are as under: 1. Birbal Ram Sharma v. UOI and Others in CWP 935/92 dated 20.12.92 High Court of Jammu and Kashmir...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Kumar Arora and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]245ITR10(Delhi)
1. Notice to show cause why the petition be not admitted.2. Mr. R.C. Pandey accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.3. Since a short point is involved, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of this petition.4. The main grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has not been allowed by the competent authority. The petitioners filed a return with respect to the assessment year 1994-95 on November 9, 1994, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,91,991 as deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act in respect of the export turnover of the company. The claim appears to have not been allowed on the ground that the money was not received within the statutory period of six months. The dispute centres around the issue as to whether the petitioner was required to make an application for extension of time for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!Modinagar Rubber Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC330
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Modinagar Rubber Mills against the Order-in-Original dated 21.02.94 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut vide which duty demand of Rs. 4,64,315.51 and penalty of Rs. 7,50,000 had been imposed on them. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as under.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transmission rubber belting falling under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and had been availing SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 83/83 dated 3.3.83. They had been clearing the goods during the period 1.4.83 to 30.09.83 on the basis of prices approved vide Price List No. RP/2/82 dated 6.2.82 without claiming the reduction on account of excise duty. However, later on they again filed price list No. 4/83 claiming therein, from the sale price deductions on account of cash discount average freight, etc. They were issued four show cause notices for the period mentioned therein by alleging that t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.C. Biscuits and Confectionary
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT914TriDel
1. The respondents, vide letter dated 26-2-2000, made a request to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for hearing in the absence of the respondents.2. The revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 27-5-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of biscuits falling under sub-heading 1905.11 of the Central Excise Tariff and were availing the benefit of Modvat scheme.On 1-4-1996, the respondents opted for full exemption from payment of central excise duty under Notification 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. The condition of the small scale exemption was that that the respondents were not entitled for credit on inputs as well as on capital goods as they were clearing final product without payment of duty. At the time of opting out of the Modvat scheme on 31-3-1996, some balance of credit in respect of capital goods under R.G. 23C Pt. II was there.Notification No. 179...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Vs. D.K. Kapur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)3CompLJ414(Del)
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.The petitioners has filed two revision petitions against the order dated 27.1.1999 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in the complaints filed by the petitioner, declining to issue process against the respondent. I, thereforee, propose to dispose of both the revisions by this common order. 2. The common features in both the revisions, which alone are relevant for dealing with the question involved in these cases, can be culled out from one of them. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the J.V. Finance Ltd. (a company incorporated under the companies Act) and others including the respondent for an offence alleged to have been committed by the company under Section 58-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (for short the 'Act'). The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the complaint and issued process against the accused persons except the respondent. The learned Magistrate declined to issue the process against the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Kara ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ681; [2000(86)FLR705]; (2000)IILLJ436Del
J.B. Goel, J.1. By this order, plaintiff's application LA. 11116/98 (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC) and defendants, application LA. 2964/99 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) filed in a suit for injunction are being disposed of. 2. Plaintiff is a Stock Exchange duly recognised/licensed under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 having a strength of about 185 employees. Defendant No. 1 is a union of its employees, defendants No. 2 and 3 are its President and General Secretary while defendants No. 4 to 17 are some of its members. In the suit, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have been illegally and unjustifiably holding demonstrations, shouting slogans, indulging in illegal and unjustified activities of gherao, sabotage, manhandling and causing blockage to the ingress and egress threatening the managers, brokers, investors, general public and willing employees to press their illegal and unjustified demands during trading hours and have also been threatening to cause dam...
Tag this Judgment!Antifriction Bearings Corpn. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC771
1. The appellants M/s. Antifriction Bearings Corpn. Ltd. had imported an Automatic Noise Testing Machine AD-0100 for Ball Bearings alongwith standard accessories and filed Bill of Entry No. 7013, dated 27.5.91.The appellants sought clearance of the machine under OGL classifying the item under Customs Tariff sub-heading No. 9024.10 read with Notifications No. 26/88 and 14/88. There was dispute as to whether the machine was automatic or not, though it was not in dispute that the machine was to be used for testing noise/vibration of bearings.Acordingly, by Show Cause Notice dated 7.8.91, they were asked to show cause why assessment of the machine should not be made under sub-heading 9031.80 read with Notification No. 118/86 and also why the machine should not be confiscated Under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 62 on account of importation of the same without a valid licence.The matter was adjudicated by Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay after hearing the party. The Addl. Collector h...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Industrial Gas Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC256
1. M/s. Vikas Industrial Gas is manufacturing industrial gases at their factory located at Vikas Nagar, Pipri Singrauli Road, Renukoot. The water required for the factory are brought by pipe line from Rihang Reservoir. The distance between the factory and the water source is one Kilo Meter. At the reservoir they installed a new reciprocating buldozer pump in March 1996 for delivering water from the reservoir through pipe line to the factory. They claimed Modvat of the Central Excise Duty paid on the pump under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The said rule allows Modvat credit on capital goods "used in the factory of the manufacturer". The Modvat credit was refused by Central Excise authorities in both original and appellate proceedings on the ground that under Rule 57Q credit of Central Excise duty on capital goods is available only in respect of capital goods installed in the factory premises. It was held that in the instant case as the party had installed the capital goods out...
Tag this Judgment!indus. and Commercial Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT559TriDel
1. M/s. Industrial and Commercial Corporation have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.02.1993 in which Collector of Central Excise appeals has decided that Hot Mix Plant will be classifiable under Heading 84.74 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Clearance of M/s. Adequate Steel and Allied Products would be clubbed with the clearances of the Appellants and that the goods had been cleared without payment of duty.2. Shri Bipin Garg, Learned Advocate, submitted that the combined functioning of Hot Mix Plant is such which is not covered by any machinery falling under heading 84.74; that the Heat Treatment of the materials being the primary function of the Hot Mix Plants, it is classifiable under Heading 84.19; that as per Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. below heading 84.79, the Heating Apparatus for Bitumen is excluded from the purview of Heading 84.79; that the Hot Mix Plants manufactured by other assessee had been classified in Delhi Collectorate under Head...
Tag this Judgment!