Delhi Court April 1983 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.
Overseas Trading Co. a/C Bank Note Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1491DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek re-assessment of raw materials for the printing of bank notes, namely, Photopolymer printing plates, litho film, litho developer (solution), under Item 87 of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff. In support of their claim, they have cited a Tariff Advice of the Central Board of Excise & Customs bearing F. No. 526/26/71-CUS (TU) dated the 22nd April, 1972, relating Nyloprint Photopolymer Plastic Printing Plates and stated that in another identical case of theirs the Central Government had already allowed their revision application under G.O.I.'s Order No. 674/81 dated 9.6.81. During the hearing they showed the Bill of Entry relating to this other identical case. On checking, the goods described in: this earlier Bill of Entry were found to be similar to those covered by the| Bill of Entry relevant to the present appeal before us. The Department's representative had nothing to say regarding the appellants' claim. On careful consideration of the matter, we find t...
Saurashtra Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1504DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals of Porbandar filed revision petition before the Central Government dated 25-1-1978, feeling aggrieved by the Order in Appeal dated 24-12-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay dismissing their appeal which they have filed against the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay passed on 28-3-1977. This revision petition has been received as an appeal in the Tribunal by virtue of provisions of section 131B of the Customs Act and is being disposed of as such.2. On the appeal being taken up, we find no representation by the appellant nor any request for adjournment, although we find that notice for hearing for 6-4-1983 was sent on 15-2-1983 by registered post.Presuming this notice having been duly served and finding not only failure to turn up for hearing, but even requisition for certain documents has also not been complied with, we decide to proceed with the appeal exercising our discretion under rule 20 of the Customs, Excise &am...
K.L. Verma Vs. Union of India and Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ247; 1985LabIC240; 1983RLR568; 1983(2)SLJ374(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The short point in this case is whether the President of India's order dated 20-12-1979 imposing the penalty on the petitioner of withholding for five years fifty per cent of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to him is valid in law or not.(2) These are the facts. The petitioner was serving as a private assistant in the Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of defense. He retired from service with effect from 31-10-1977. In 1976 the petitioner's wife had purchased a factory. The charge brought against the petitioner was that he had acquired immovable property in the name of his wife without the previous knowledge and sanction of the prescribed authority and had thereby violated Rule 18(2) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules). An inquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into this matter. He made his report. He found that the petitioner had committed merely 'a minor offence' and was not guilty...
Ram Goyal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1048; 24(1983)DLT83
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) -BY a formal order dated 28th April, 1983, Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 37 and 38 of 1983, filed by Shri Ram Goyal and Sita Ram Jodhani were allowed and the orders of detention dated 3rd July, 1982 issued against them were quashed. The petitioners were ordered to be set at liberty, unless they were required to be in detention under any other valid law or order or if a prosecution was pending against them in which they had been arrested but had not been enlarged on bail. The detailed reasons for the passing of the aforesaid order are given hercunder. (2) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the two petitioners are of Indian origin but hold Nepalese passports. According to them they are permanent residents of Nepal. On 4th May, 1982 both of them arrived by Panam flight from Hongkong at 3.20 A.M. (3) According to the respondents, the petitioners Shri Ram Goyal and Sita Ram Jodhani collected their baggage and reported at counter Nos. 4 and 7 respectively in the re...
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT979TriDel
2. In this case, the appellants seek reassessment of "Hot mill blocker and ancillary equipment" (hereinafter referred to as 'the blocker') at lower rate of duty under heading 84.22 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a handling equipment or, in the alternative, under heading 84 59(2) CTA as a mechanical appliance designed for production of a commodity, namely, aluminium strips or sheets in coil. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector rejected their claim and upheld the original assessment made under heading 84.59(1). The appellants filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, is now before us as a deemed appeal. To facilitate a proper understanding of the points and counter-points of the two sides, we reproduce below the description of headings 84.22 and 84.59 :- "84.22 Lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery, telphers and conveyors (for example, lifts, hoists, winches, cranes, transporter cranes, jacks, pulley t...
Alkali and Chemical Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC659DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application to the Government of India, which under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is to be proceeded with, as if it were an appeal filed before this Tribunal.2. The appellants produce Chlorine gas through electrolysis of Sodium Chloride in diaphragm cell. The Chlorine so produced is however, not marketable or suitable for use because it contains various hazardous impurities like hydrogeh, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, moisture etc. These impurities have to be removed to make the Chlorine fit for use or sale. For this purpose Chlorine is dried and liquefied. In the process of liquefaction, the impurities present in Chlorine go out from the system with sniff gas. Chlorine in the form of liquid is sold in the market. After liquefaction, pure Chlorine is taken into the process tanks wherefrom it is taken through a pipeline to the vaporiser installed within the same Chlorine plant. The vaporiser vaporises the pure Chlorine to dry gaseous...
Aurobindo Mukerji Vs. S.G. Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT136
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This is a petition by the tenant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Additional Controller dated August 10, 1982. (2) The petitioner, Aurobindo Mukerji, is in occupation of entire house No. D-587, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, as a tenant under the respondent S.G. Das. On February 16, 1982 the respondent filed a petition under proviso (e) to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from the said premises. Summons were directed to be issued to the petitioner in the Form specified in the Third Schedule to the Act by ordinary process as well as registered post. The registered envelope was served on the petitioner on March 27, 1982. He was served by ordinary process on April 13, 1982. (3) On April 12, 1982 the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure staling that on March 27, 1982 he had received an envelope b...
Shyam Kak Vs. J.P. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT12
M.L. Jain, J.(1) -ON 10-2.1977 the 21-A Janpath, New Delhi office of the Arya Offshore Service (P) Ltd., Bombay, wrote to Shri J.P. Gupte, one of the owners of premises S-56, Panchshila Park, New Delhi, enclosing a cheque of Rs. 2700.00 as one month's advance rent. On 28-2-1977 a lease agreement was executed registered between the said Shri J.P. Gupta and his wife Smt. Sita Gupta, as Lessers, and the Arya Offshore Service (P) Ltd., through their Chief Executive Shri S.K. Kak, as lessee, in respect of the aforesaid premises. The tenancy was granted for a period of three years commencing on 1-3-1977 at the rent of Rs. 2700.00 p.m. The rent was payable quarterly. (2) On 6-2-1982, the Lessers filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) against the Arya Offshore Service for non-payment of rent. In this petition, they also stated that the said Arya Offshore Service has assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in ...
Panna Lal JaIn Vs. Memo Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT66
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition as well as Civil Revision No. 604 of 1980 (Panna Lal Jain v. Sunder Lal) raise common questions of law and facts and would be disposed of by this common judgment. (2) Panna Lal Jain, the petitioner, is owner of a three-storeyed house, bearing No. 431 I, Gali Bhaironwali, Nai Sarak, Delhi. The extent of the accommodation in the said house is shown in the site plan Exhibit A-14. On the ground floor there were three tenants. Memo Devi, Mahabir Pershad and Sunder Lal. Memo Devi was in occupation of a Kotha, store room, Dalan and some space under the staircase shown as red in the site plan. Sunder Lal was in possession of a Kotha and Dalan while Mahabir Pershad was in occupation of one Dalan only. On the first floor there was only one tenant, Ram Kishan Gupta. His tenancy premises consisted of a room, two Kothas, Dalan, kitchen, shown as red in the plan Exhibit A. 14. Mela Rem was in occupation of a room, store and kitchen on the second floor of the h...
Delhi Electric Supply Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1500DTri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed by the appellants before the Central Government as a Revision Application and has come on transfer to the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The simple issue arising for decision in the present appeal is the correct classification of gauge glasses for use in Boilers imported by the appellants for their Indraprastha Power Station. The Customs authorities at the Bombay Port assessed the goods to duty under Heading No. 70.21 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff) as "other articles of glass". After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty assessed the appellants filed a claim for refund contending that the correct classification of the goods was under heading 84.01/02 as "Parts of Boilers" on the ground that the gauge glasses in question were specially designed for withstanding high...