Delhi Court December 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 5 of about 53 results (0.022 seconds)A.S. Tiwari Vs. Delhi Administration, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT477; 1984(2)SLJ33(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a tale of two teachers. They are physical instructors in a school. They are drill masters of the good old days. But better qualified and better paid now. Physical education has acquired a new importance in our modern system of education. The State has realised that children should be strong and healthy. 'A sound mind in a sound body' is the maxim that is followed now. The facts :(2) These two writ petitions are filed by two physical education teachers who are working in Birla Higher Secondary School now known as Birla Senior Secondary School in old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. This is a Government recognised and aided school. A. S. Tiwari, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 211 of 1977, joined the school on 15-7-51. Om Prakash Verma, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 162 of 1981. joined the school on 15-7-1953. Though Tiwari was appointed earlier the qualifications of these two teachers are different. Tiwari at the time of appointed was a metriculate holding a certificate in ph...
Tag this Judgment!A.C.C. Babcock Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT369TriDel
1. This is an appeal by M/s. A.C.C. Babcock Ltd., Shahabad, Gulbarga District, Karnataka against the classification of the goods namely, 'Cast iron rolls' manufactured by them under Tariff Item, 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants have stated that these 'Rough castings' fall under T.1.25 of the C.E.T. and they are totally exempt from the Central Excise duty. Such iron rolls are supplied to re-rollers to use such castings in their factories after completing certain further processes as per design at their end. These castings in the appellants' factory undergo only partial machining to remove the surface defects on the main body of the rolls. No doubt fine machining is also done on certain portion of the castings, namely; the collar portions which are about 3-1/2" on either side of the rolls but this surface machining and fine machining of the collar do not covert the casting to any different form, nor does it transfrom it into a different identifiable product such as, machi...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhman Spinning and General Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT426TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as a revision application to the Government of India, is whether D.B.E.Computer Voltage Stabiliser imported by the appellants by B.E. Cash No.133, dt. 31-7-1973, ex. s.s. Rebenfeles are chargeable to countervailing duty.2. The appellants had imported a number of items by the Bill of Entry under reference. The applied for refund on various items and on some items they succeeded. In the present appeal, the question relates only to DBE Computer and Stabiliser. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 15-7-1976 rejected the part of the claim holding that voltage stabiliser and D.B.E. Computer are to be treated as one unit. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order dated 21-9-1979 rejected the claim inter alia holding that item 33D of C.E.T. covers Auxiliary machines and voltage stabiliser would be included therein.Hence the present appeal.3. At the hearing of appeal, Sh. C.L. Beri, Advocate represented the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Bhan Soni Vs. the Administration of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(3)Crimes409; 25(1984)DLT343; 1984(6)DRJ231; 1984RLR171
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Upon a request by the Sho Moti Nagar for extern' ment of the petitioner, a notice was issued on 31-7-1982 to the petitioner Chander Bhan Soni of Karampura under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 that he was from 1972 to 1982 involved in several criminal cases in' eluding attempt to murder, robbery, theft, keeping and receiving stolen property, harbouring criminals, keeping of arms, etc. and his presence was hazardous to the community in the Union Territory of Delhi. His movement and acts were causing harm and danger to the persons and property. There were reasonable grounds for believing that he was engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapters Xvi and Xvii of the Penal Code. A list of 38 such cases was also incorporated. It was further alleged in the notice that witnesses did not come forward to depose against him in public for fear of their persons and property. He was, thereforee) directed to show cause why he should not be externed from th...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Gupta Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT74(Del); (1981)SuppSCC87
Sachar, J.(1) The lure of imported items in this country continues to have a great attraction even after 35 years of independence Apparently that seems the reason why the Government has had to come out with the liberal stand making it easy to import items from outside not necessarily because they cannot be manufactured but because they are more easily available outside. In 1978 exemption from payment of custom duty to the extent of 50% was permitted on cars fitted with special system for handicapped persons. In may 1978, however, the policy was reviewed and it was found that the cars could easily be restored for use of normal persons and hence it was decided not to grant exemption from custom duty on such cars. However, once the attraction of imported items had been introduced in the market it is not easy to get rid of it. So the Government was naturally pestered with restoring the concession and using 1981 as the year of handicapped a policy was brought forth which provided that cars ...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Equipments (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT438TriDel
B (Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras). The two appeals have common facts and common order-in-original and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The question for decision in these appeals is whether for the purpose of granting or rejecting concession under Notification No.80/80-C.E., dated, 19-6-1980, the clearances made by the dissolved partnership firm, M/s. Gaurav Equipments, Coimbatore (Appellants in Appeal No. 1720/83) and M/s. Gaurav Equipments (Private) Ltd., appellants in appeal No. 1721/83-B should be clubbed together.3. M/s. Gaurav Equipments, the partnership firm consisted of three partners viz. Mr. M.K. Gupta, Mr. S.R. Gupta and Mr. Anil Gupta. They were manufacturing Electrical Mixies at 155, 5th Street, K.K. Pudur, Saibaba Mission Post, Coimbatore. Their product fell under the category of domestic electrical appliances under T.I. No. 33-C of the Central Excise Tariff. The product was eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No...
Tag this Judgment!Hico Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT344TriDel
1. The captio-ned appeal arises out of and is directed against the order dated 11-3-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) by which he rejected the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. V (15A) 4-28/82/4491 dated 13-7-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. The facts of the case, relevant and material for the present appeal, briefly stated, are as follows : - (i) The appellants (to be referred as HICO, for short) manufacture, among other things, some silicone-based products under the name of Katrang SI 40 etc. These products were being classified under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). In the wake of the 1982 Budget changes, the Department sought to tax these products under Item No. 15A(1) CET; (ii) However, HICO maintained that the products, being silicone emulsions, were still classifiable under Item 68 CET and accordingly filed classification list in respect of these products; (iii) On 19-6-1981, the Supdt. of ...
Tag this Judgment!Salco Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT356TriDel
1. Question for decision in this appeal is whether in the case of the appellants who are permitted to follow rule 56A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the rules) procedure demand of duty for the period 1-11-80 to 28-2-81 on waste recycled as raw material for manufacture of Aluminium Extruded shapes and sections is justified.2. The Assistant Collector and Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that such recycling of waste was removal for the purpose of Rule 56A (3) (iv). The Collector (Appeals) for the period upheld the demand.3. Shri V. N. Deshpande, learned advocate for the appellants argued that rules 9 and 49 of (he Rules providing for intermediate goods being deemed to have been removed on being consumed or utilised in the factory was not applicable in the case of a manufacturer following rule 56A procedure. He also argued that before 1-3-1981 scrap and waste were not included in Tariff Item 27-Aluminium and sub-item (aa) (waste and scrap) came in the tariff only on 1-...
Tag this Judgment!Dempo Engineering Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT358TriDel
1. The Appellants M/s. Dempo Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. have been licensed for manufacture of floating vessels, such as, Barges, Launches and Trawlers. These items fall under the Item 68 of the CET. Under Government of India Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-77, these goods are exempt from payment of the Central Excise duty if the total value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in their industrial unit is not more than Rs. 10 lakhs and the total value of the clearances during the relevant period, namely, 1977-78 (on 18-6-77) does not exceed Rs. 24 lakhs during the said financial year 1977-78. The Advocate for the appellants has stated that the main point before the Tribunal for consideration is regarding the inclusion of the value of P and H Crane valued at Rs. 7,22,064/- in the computation of the value of the capital investment made on plant and machinery installed in the appellants' factory. The Assistant Collector has held that the w...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand Vs. S.M. Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984CriLJ481; 25(1984)DLT52; 1984(6)DRJ160; 1984RLR111
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) Subhash Chand, petitioner, along with his brother Lakshman and mother Shakuntala were found guilty of having killed Sudha, wife of accused Lakshman by burning her. Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge tried the case and on 27th of May 1983 sentenced all the three accused to death. After handing down the death sentences, he submitted the record to this Court.for confirmation of the death sentences. While the said murder reference No. I of 1983 was subjudice and immediately. after the pronouncement of death sentences, respondent No. 1 is alleged to have given press interviews and an interview to Doordarshan where he is stated to have discussed the merits of this case. This he is stated to have done despite his awareness that the case was still subjudice and the sentences passed by him were not executable unless the same is confirmed by this Court. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 who had tried the case had no business to go to press and Doordarshan...
Tag this Judgment!