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.
Mahendra Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC(1971)DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Mahendra Mills Ltd., Kalol, Gujarat, filed a revision petition before the Central Government on 19th January 1977 against the Order No. 1775/76 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay on 1-11-1976. By virtue of the provisions of Section 35(P) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the same, has been transferred to the Tribunal as an appeal to be disposed of.2. In compliance to notice dated 11th of March 1983, intimating today's hearing date, a communication dated March 25, 1983 has been sent by the assessee in which permission is sought to withdraw the appeal.3. We have perused the request and also the subject matter of appeal and find that the withdrawal request is not based on any intention to take out of 'focus of the Tribunal any dispute which could possibly result in enhancement of duty or withdrawal of any exemption. This aspect was noticed by us because right of withdrawal of an appeal or petition cannot be said to be available to the parties. In...
British Airways Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1967DTri(Delhi)
1. The case came up for hearing on the 18th March, 1983 and today i.e.on 13-4-1983.2. This is a revision application to the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 131-B) against the order in appeal No. S/49-705/78 AIR, dated 26-4-1978, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.3. In this case the appellants seek reassessment of the goods, namely, Computer Selective Calling System, Type S-626 as Computer sub-system under Heading 84.51/55(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Notification No. 272/76-Customs.4. Shri Venkataraman, on behalf of the appellants, stated that the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay had brushed aside the expert opinion given by the Department of Electronics, Govt. of India which clearly certified that the articles imported by the appellants were S-626 Automatic Teleprinters Selective Calling system comprising Units K-08, K-02, DD-39 in 249 as Computer sub-system for use in conjunction with computer switc...
Anoop Puri Vs. Surinder Kaimar Khurana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ280; 1983RLR578
Sultan Singh, J.(1) THE petitioner Anoop Puri, Proprietor of Saraswati Press carries on business of printing at 3, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi. The petitioner granted a license to Surinder Kumar Khurana, Proprietor of M/s. Printrade (respondent No. 1) for the use of his two printing machines on payment of monthly license fee at Rs. 3000.00 payable in advance every month for a period of two years in terms of the agreement dated 8th March, 1978. Respondent No. I was entitled to run. the machines on trial basis in the first instance for three months and thereafter be had an option to discontinue the use of the machines. The petitioner had a right to revoke the license for breach of any of the terms of the license agreement. The petitioner revoked the license on 31st May, 1979 by telegram and notice on account of alleged breach of terms. Respondent No. I, it is alleged, failed to pay license fee, telephone and electricity bills amounting to Rs. 20,005.29 as on 31st May, 1979 in spite ...
Jagdish Lal Chanda Vs. Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ150; 1983LabIC1518; 1983RLR417; 1983(2)SLJ564(Delhi)
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15th October 1982 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service without holding the usual enquiry. The petitioner Shri J.L. Chanda at the relevant time was posted as Senior Accounts Assistant in the Central Cottage Industries Corporation Limited. Earlier to the above order on 28th July 1979 the petitioner was placed under suspension. The order dated 15th October 1982 is a brief one and it reads as under : 'YOU are hereby informed that you are dismissed from service with immediate effect on account of gross misconduct including fraud cheating, forgery and embezzlement of Corporation's fund to the true of Rs. 11.34 lakhs (approximately) and thus causing wrongful loss to the Corporation. On account of the nature of the charges, you have forfeited the confidence of the Management and it is not desirable to keep you in service any longer.'(2) The respondents in their counter affidavit pleaded that in 1979 an embe...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. K.P. Shankra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1281; 1983(2)Crimes253; 24(1983)DLT79; 1983RLR530
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This judgment shall also dispose of Criminal -Appeal Nos. 131/76, 132/76, 263/76, 264/76, 265./76 and 266/76 since they involve common questions of fact and law. (2) The respondent K.P. Shankara is the owner of the building bearing No. 11, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. On 17th February 1973 the field staff of the Delhi Development Authority reported that the owner of premises bearing No. 11 Babar Lane was using the said building in contravention of the Master Plan of Delhi. After obtaining sanction for the predication on 1st June 1973, the Secretary, Delhi Development Authority filed a complaint under Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act against the respondent. The allegation in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1976 is that the respondent had let out one room on the first floor, 11 Babar Lane New Delhi to M/s. Payen & Go. who were using the said room as an office which is in contravention of the Master Plan. The allegation in the other complaints is simil...
Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC992DTri(Delhi)
2. In this case, the appellants imported certain parts for manufacture of Sliding Headstock Automatics which are machine tools for working on metals and therefore classifiable under heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants wanted assessment of these parts under this heading on the ground that the subject parts were replacements for earlier goods short-shipped and which were assessed at 40% ad-val.under heaoing 84.45/48, except item 6. They, however, added in the course of the arguments before us that even item 6 was a part of the above machine tool. Their claim was dealt with by the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector in terms of exemption notification No. 35/79-Cus. and rejected on the ground that according to this notification the parts themselves should fall under one or more of the tariff headings specified in the notification while the subject parts fell under headings not so specified. During the hearing, the Department's representative accept...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT296TriDel
2. In this case, the appellants imported certain parts for manufacture of Sliding Headstock Automatics which are machine tools for working on metals and therefore classifiable under heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants wanted assessment of these parts under this heading on the ground that the subject parts were replacements for earlier goods short-shipped and which were assessed at 40%. ad-val.under heading 84.45/48, except item 6. They, however, added in the course of the arguments before us that even item 6 was a part of the above machine tool. Their claim was dealt with by the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector in terms of exemption Notification No. 35/79-Cus. and rejected on the ground that according to this notification the parts themselves should fall under one or more of the tariff headings specified in the notification while the subject parts fell under headings not so specified. During the hearing, the Department's representative accep...
Sylvania and Laxman Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1558Tri(Delhi)
1. This case came up for hearing on 12.4.83. The Representative of the Appellants stated that the goods namely 'Tungsten wire' imported by the Appellants were classified by the Bombay Customs House under Item 73(23) of ICT. The Delhi Customs, however, have all along been assessing the duty under Item 70(1) KT. He stated that the goods were classifiable under Item 70(1) and not 73(23) ICT, since the latter item covers Nichrome and similar resistance wires. The SDR, however, stated that 73(23) ICT is more specific for all resistance wires and tungsten wire imported by the appellants would more appropriately be assessed under the said Item. In this connection, the SDR referred to the Board's Tariff Advices namely Tariff Advice 43 of 1972 and Tariff Advice...
R.A. Prasad Vs. the Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi285
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This case concerns the Food Corporation of India (the Corporation). This Corporation was established by the Food Corporation Act, 1964. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Corporation to frame regulations. In exercise of this delegated power the Corporation framed the Staff Regulations in 1971. (2) These corporate bodies exercise functions of a legislative nature delegated to them by legislative bodies. In essence they are subordinate legislative bodies, but in truth, they are what Lord Maugham described in Rowell vs. Pratt (1938) Ac 101 (1), as domestic bodies which the legislature has thought fit in the public interest to entrust with important statutory powers. The Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 have the force of statute [See: Kailash Nath vs. State of U. P. Air 1957 Sc 799 (2)]. (3) In recent years the legislature has been creating these corporations in increasingly large numbers. They are created by Acts of Parliament. They are a typ...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Ramji Das Khanna and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi175; 1984(6)DRJ178; 1983RLR437
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is an application under Order 37 Rule 4 Order 37 Rule 3(7), Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 2nd August, 1982.(2) Punjab & Sind Bank plaintiff/non-applicant on the basis of a protrude for Rs. 55,000.00 dated 7th February, alleged to have been executed by the defendants, filed on 1st February, 1982 a suit for recovery of Rs 1,33,760.41 under Order 37 of the Code. Summons in the prescribed form under Order 37 of the Code was issued for 23rd March, 1982. The defendants were not served. Fresh summons were ordered to be issued for 5th May, 1982. The Court in its order dated 18th May, 1982 did not treat the service for 5th May, 1982 as valid. Fresh summons were issued to the defendants for 12th July, 1982 with the direction that, 'if the defendants cannot be served personally or they refuse to accept service, service be got effected by way of affixation'. It was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »