Delhi Court October 1984 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.
The Western India Plywoods Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT590TriDel
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The issue in this case is as regards the correct Central Excise classification of the products manufactured by the appellants and marketed under the name of "Wipchek compressed floor board", "Wipchek floor board" and "Wiptread floor board". While the Central Excise authorities have classified them under Item 16B of the Central Excise Tariff (covering plywood, block board, etc.), the appellants contend that the correct classification should be under Item 68 as "All other goods, not elsewhere specified".3. The subject matter of the appeal was covered by two orders of the Assistant Collector, against which they went up to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The latter authority remanded the two cases...
Daya Rani Vs. Krishan Gopal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT176
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts leading to this appeal succinctly are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised in accordance with Hindu ceremonies and rites on 9th, December 1978 at Ghaziabad to which place the parents of the appellant belong. Thereafter, the parties lived together at Delhi as husband and wife uptil 8th August 1979 on which date the appellant is stated to have gone to her parents' house for performing Raksha Bandhan ceremony. However, she did not return despite efforts allegedly made by the respondent and his father etc. repeatedly to bring her back. Thereupon, in February 1980 the respondent moved a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant did not file any written statement in the said petition as the efforts on the part of the Court to bring about reconciliation bore fruit. So, on 22nd of May 1980 the appellant joined the company of the respondent and went bac...
Des Raj Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes832; 1985(8)DRJ13a
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) So far as the merits of the grounds of detention, I will not make any endeavor to prove into them. They pertain to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority) and I do not find any circumstances which can bring out that the power under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act has been unwarrantedly or without any relevance exercised. The petitioner was alleged to have been apprehended on 8-8-1983 while taking delivery of 415 watches of foreign origin from G.M. Airways along with his brother-in-law. He was arrested under the Customs Act and was bailed out by the Court. The case against him has been filed and the trial proceeding.(2) Since the present detention is the result of that singular act of the petitioner taking delivery of the said watches of foreign origin and he has already been allowed bail in that criminal prosecution, this court has to be very careful in scrutinising the validity of the order of preventiv...
Swaran Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ13
D.R. Khanna, J.1. So far as the merits of the grounds of detention, I will not make any endeavor to prove into them. They pertain to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and I do not find any circumstances which can bring out that the power under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act has been unwarrantedly or without any relevance exercised. The petitioner was alleged to have been apprehended on 8-8-1983 while taking delivery of 415 watches of foreign origin from G.M. Airways along with his brother-in-law. He was arrested under the Customs Act and was bailed out by the Court. The case against him has been filed and the trial proceeding.2. Since the present detention is the result of that singular act of the petitioner taking delivery of the said watches of foreign origin and he has already been allowed bail in that criminal prosecution, this court has to be very careful in scrutinising the validity of the order of preventive ...
Kirloskar Filters Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT453TriDel
1. The question involved in this case is whether Filters KFF-1002 used in Dumpers and Haulers are liable to duty as "Parts and accessories of Motor Vehicles, N.O.S." under Item 34-A of the Central Excise Tariff and whether duty was due on such Filters removed by the party without payment of duty during the period from 1-3-1973 to 31-5-1975.2. Shri Setalvad stated that the Filters in question are manufactured by the appellants in accordance with the drawings and specifications of Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. The said Filters cannot be used in any internal combustion engines other than the internal combustion engines manufactured by the Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Over 90% of the engines manufactured by Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. are utilised in stationary and industrial applications such as pumps, compressors, drilling rigs, generator sets, etc. and only about 10% of the engines are used in application such as dumpers. Shri Setalvad also added that Filter can never fall under Tariff Item 34-A, but be...
Amar Soap Factory Vs. Public Gram Udyog Samiti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi960
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) In a suit for perpetual injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages etc., the case set up by the plaintiff Amar Soap Factory, in brief is that it. is a partnership firm consisting of four partners duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act; that Shri Surjit Singh, one of the partners, is well acquainted with the facts of the case and authorised to file, sign and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the firm; that the plaintiff is doing the business of manufacturing and selling of all kinds of scaps since the year 1960, continuously and extensively; that since then the plaintiff has been using a. distinctive trade mark recognised by the device of crosswords and called by the name of Talwar Marka' for their products and have acquired a valuable goodwill; that the plaintiff firm is registered proprietor of artistic labe) entitled Talwar Marka' which is duly registered under No. A-7562/72 und...
Shri Niwas Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT532TriDel
1. The question in this case is whether stainless steel 'flats' of 6 mm (thickness) X 250 mm (width) in straight lengths, imported by the appellants, are liable to be assessed to duty as stainless steel strips under Item 73.15(2)-CTA, or under Tariff Item No. 73.15(1), being item "not elsewhere specified".2. Shri Kumar M. Mehta has urged that the said goods were described in the invoice as well as in the Bill of Entry as stainless steel 'flats'.It has also been contended that as per the expert advice obtained from the Victoria Jubiless Technical Institute, Bombay, and Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the item imported by the appellants could be classified more appropriately as 'flats' rather than 'Hoops and Strips'. It has been further urged by Shri Mehta that while the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, in his Order-in-Appeal No.S/49-646/79-R dated 19-3-1979 has held that the impugned goods satisfied all the conditions laid down for 'Hoops and Strips' and, therefore, meri...
Union of India Vs. Hans Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT63; 1985(8)DRJ190; 1985RLR125
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge dated 15th May, 1976. (2) These are the facts. The plaintiff/respondent Hans Raj brought a suit against the Union of India on 16th August, 1971 challenging the order of his retirement which took effect from 24th July, 1968. His case was that as a Subedar he was entitled to go up to 24th July, 1970. The second plank of his claim was that he was also entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Subedar Major in 1969 when his junior Har Milapi J.C. was promoted. But he having been retired in 1968 he was not considered for promotion nor promoted in fact. He claimed a decree for declaration and for Rs. 14,352-70. The particulars of the claim made in the plaint are these : (I) On account of salary @ Rs.500.00 Rs. 8,112.70 per month as Subedar from 25-7-1968 to 30-11-1969. (ii) On account of salary @ Rs. 600.00 Rs. 12,000.00 per month as Subedar Major from 1-12-1969 to 31-7-1971. Rs. ...
Jagdish Singh Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi352
Sachar, J.(1) This is a reference to a larger bench made by Chadha, J. by his order of 22nd March, 1984. The Petitioner in course of his employment with respondent No. 3 Bank was given a substantive rank of Deputy Manager on Feb. 3, 1980. Later on disciplinary proceedings were started against the petitioner. He was given a charge-sheet on 29th December, 1980, and an enquiry was held and ultimately the petitioner was informed on 27th January, 1981 that his services had been terminated as a result of disciplinary proceedings with immediate effect. His appeal to the Board of Directors also failed. (2) The petitioner, thereforee, moved an application under Section 60 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (to be called Delhi Act) seeking to raise a dispute about the termination of his services. The Deputy Registrar by his order dated 28th January 1982 held that since petitioner was a paid employee of the bank working as a Deputy General Manager he is not permitted to raise a dispute und...
Empire Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT572TriDel
1. The material facts in this Revision Application to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an appeal in terms of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act, in short) are :- (a) tiles for decoration of wall surfaces were manufactured by M/s. Vitrum Glass Division originally. It was taken over by the Appellant some time in 1967 ; (b) in June 1967, the Assistant Collector would appear to have classified the tiles under Item 23A(4) of the First Schedule to the Act. An Appeal against the said classification was rejected as barred by time and a Revision preferred against it rejected ; (c) the Appellant filed a fresh classification list on or about 19-9-1973 claiming that the goods in question did not fall within Item No. 23A (4) and, consequently, they are not excisable. On the rejection of the request for re-classification, the Appellant carried the matter in Revision to the Government of India. In disposing of the said Revision, by the ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »