Delhi Court May 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 8 of about 89 results (0.023 seconds)Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1334Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek re-assessment of alloy steel imported by them at lower rate of duty under Item 63(30) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff. Their claim was rejected "by the lower authorities as unsubstantiated. During the hearing before us, the Department's representative resisted the appellants' claim on the ground that Item 63(30) ICT covered rods or bars while the Bill of Entry and the invoice in this case described the subject goods as forgings 260 mm. The appellants countered this objection by producing their correspondence with the foreign supplier. They showed the foreign supplier's order confirmation which described the goods contracted for as forged bars.The particulars of this order confirmation were quoted in the import invoice of the consignment. The appellants also produce. another Bill of Entry bearing No. 337 dated 27.1.75 wherein another consignment of 220 mm. diameter shipped against the same order confirmation had been assessed by the Department under Item 6...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Limited Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT1688(Del); ILR1983Delhi327
Sachar, J.(1) This petition along with a bunch of petitions will be disposed of by this common judgment as most of the points raised are common, where necessary, we shall deal with a particular petition separately.(2) The petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in demanding the duty of custom on consignment of PVC Resin imported by the petitioners.(3) Pvc Resin is classified under Chapter 39 of 1st Schedule to Customs Tariff Act. 1975 and falls under headingNo. 39.01 '0.6 and the rate of duty indicated therein is100 per cent. However, in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act. Central Government had issued a notification dated 15-3-1979 exempting the Pvc Resin when imported into India, from the whole of the duty of custom livable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule. This notification was stated to remain in force up to and inclusive of 3 1-3-1981.(4) However, on 16-10-1980 another notification was issued under Sub-Section (I ) of Section 25 o...
Tag this Judgment!Kauralal Madanlal and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs and C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1419DTri(Delhi)
1. In this Revision application to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard by us as an appeal pursuant to Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, the facts were : (a) A consignment of 10 drums wrapped in jute cloth was intercepted on 16.12.76 outside the delivery godown of M/s. Amritsar-Bombay Carriers (Regd.), Nabi Karim, Delhi, in the presence of Appellant No. 2 and independent witnesses. On examination it was revealed that (i) they contained citric acid monohydrate granular, made in Belgium; (iii) they were booked by M/s. Pancham Trading Co., Bombay to self; and (iv) they were accompanied with a Bill drawn upon Union Chemical Agency, Katra Ishwar Bhavan, Khari Baoli, Delhi; (b) The Appellant No. 2, partner of Appellant No. 1 claimed ownership, for himself and Appellant No. 1, of the drums but failed to produce any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to show lawful possession of the same or acquisition of the same; (c) The said goods were, therefore, seized und...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Pargan Singh Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1423DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter originally was a revision petition which has been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and is taken up as an appeal for consideration.2. We have considered the appeal which is against the refusal by the Appellate Collector to allow the re-export of the gold bar imported by the Appellant on 13-5-1982.3. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that he, having declared the gold bar, it cannot be held to have been "imported" in view of the case law, especially 1981 ELT 153. It was argued that the import was not completed and, therefore, the goods are not liable to confiscation.It was also submitted that earlier the Govt. of India and the Appellate Collector had allowed re-export in similar circumstances. As no offence has been committed by the Appellant, the confiscation is not valid.5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and examined the case law cited by the Appellant.(K. R. Ahmed Shah v. Addl. Collector of Customs, Madras), (a) importation can only...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Central Rly. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1418DTri(Delhi)
1. The case was heard on 10.5.1983. The appellants seek reassessment of items 111 to VI of the Bill of Entry al lover rate of duty under item 72(3)/ 72 as of the erstwhile Indian C Customs Tariff on the ground that these were spare parts of various relays used in protective circuits of electric locomotives. Their claim was rejected by the lower authorities as unsubstantiated. Along with their revision application (now the subject appeal before us), they have submitted a certificate from the Chief Engineer (Electrical) of the Central Railway in which it has been certified that the subject goods are, specially designed to shape and size for their exclusive use on WAG-4 AC electric locomotiyes and the same cannot be used elsewhere. During the hearing before us, they further substantiated the contents of the certificate by showing us the relevant drawings and catalogues. The subject goods bear the following drawings numbers : The Department's representative resisted the appellants' claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Harbhagwan Dass Vs. Kharak Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT191
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This is the landlord's petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Kent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act').(2) On 7/05/1976, the petitioner, Harbhagwan Dass filed an application under proviso (e) to Sub-section(1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent Kharak Singh from the premises in suit, consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath room, latrine,verandah on the first floor and a terrace on the second floor of Flat No. 14,Jangpura Extension Market, New Delhi. It was averred that the petitioner was the owner of the said premises and had let out the same to the respondent on 15/05/1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 for residential purposes only.The family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wile, two sons and fourdaughters, all grown up and studying. The accommodation in his possession consisting of one room which had been divided into two compartments was insufficient and he bonafide required the premises in suit fo...
Tag this Judgment!L.N. Gupta Vs. Tara Mani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi49; 24(1983)DLT184; 1983(5)DRJ190
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent plaintiff Tara Mani, a widow living in D-II/160, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi, filed a suit in Delhi against the petitioners defendants on the basis of a pronote which was made and delivered on 9-6-1978 in Bangalore in her favor by the petitioners defendants payable on demand 'at Bangalore or any part of India'. In New Delhi she was living with her relative and attorney B.S. Gupta. On 12-3-1981 B.S. Gupta wrote from New Delhi to the petitioners to remit the amount due to her within 30 days. On 11-5-1981 her advocate upon instructions from Smt. Tara Mani by a notice called upon the petitioners to pay the amount due within seven days. Since no payment was forthcoming, the present suit was filed on 28-5-1981.(2) Upon an objection, a preliminary issue was framed whether the Delhi court had any jurisdiction. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that the defendants agreed to make payment on demand at any part of India. So, if payment could be demand...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Wire Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC831DTri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case in brief are that the appellants manufacture a number of excisable goods falling under different items of the Central Excise Tariff, aluminium wire (item 33B), bolts (item 52), steel wire (item 26AA), rivets and nails (item 68). In his Order-in-Original, the adjudicating Collector held that during the period from 1-4-1979 to 16-3-1981, the appellants clandestinely removed aluminium wire and bolts without payment of duty and also committed other violations of the Central Excises and Salts Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by their failure to take out a central excise licence and to maintain the statutory records and submit the prescibed returns. The Collector called upon the appellants to pay the central excise duty and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.000/- on them under rule, 173 read with rules 9 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, acting as the appellate authority, gave the benefit of time-bar to th...
Tag this Judgment!Manisha Enterprises Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC836DTri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal of M/s. Manisha Enterprises under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, against the Order No. S/10-134/81.H dated 30.7.81 of the Additional Collector of Customs and No. 47 dt. 10.2.82 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi under which a redemption fine of Rs. 5000/- has been levied on 3 sets of hot stamping press for stamping on plastics, leather, paper, wood etc. imported by the appellants. The appellants' advocate has argued that the import of the machine was made by the importers as the actual user and they had claimed clearance of the goods under the heading at Sr. No. 12 'Printing Machinery' under Appendix 2. The entry at Sr. No. 19 under the aforesaid heading at page 55 of the policy book was specific for covering stamping machine. The importers were manufacturers of radio components, plastic moulded novelties and electrical accessories and they had the industrial licence and were registered as S.S.I. manufacturer for the aforesaid goods. This...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Kishore Sharma Vs. Kampa Wati and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi14a; 24(1983)DLT46; 1983(5)DRJ141; 1983RLR536
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent Kampa Wati filed an eviction petition against the appellant Chander Kishore Sharma under clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of non-payment of rent. It appears that the tenant by 13-4-1976 had paid arrears of rent by money order to the tune of Rs. 495.00 and had further deposited rent at various dates in the court to the tune of Rs. 2090.00 by 31-1-1979.(2) The learned Additional Controller, however, made an order on 31-5-1979 under Section 15(1) of the said Act which order was later on modified in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal on 16-10-1979. The order read with the modification amounts to this that the tenant was required to pay within a month all the arrears of rent that were due by 31-5-1979 after the adjustment of the amount already paid as aforesaid. As a matter of fact, after excluding the amount permitted to be adjusted, there were no arrears to be paid on the date of...
Tag this Judgment!