Delhi Court August 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.
Vishwanath Pandey Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT155TriDel
1. In this Application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 131C thereof (the Act, for short) the Applicant requires the Tribunal to refer to the High Court certain questions, alleged to be questions of law, arising out of the Order No. 781/83-NRB of the Tribunal in a Revision Petition to the Government of India, transferred and heard by the Tribunal as an Appeal No. CD(DEL)(T)/A.No.514/82-NRB, pursuant to Section 131B of the Act.2. The questions of law said to be arising out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal are : (a) Whether, in view of the illegal show cause notice issued after six months without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to contest its extension, the Collector of Central Excise, had any jurisdiction to pass the impugned Adjudication Order, confiscating the seized goods and imposing the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- against the Petitioner? (b) Whether, in view of the Notification No. 35-Cus., dated 4-3-1972, the Collector of Central Excise,...
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT505TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. The Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Gurgaon against order No. S. 49-688/81 R dated 14-4-81 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. It is argued by the appellants that the goods imported by them - adipic acid had been used in the manufacture of drugs. They had used this in the manufacture of piperazine adipate. The Appellate Collector has dismissed their appeal only on the ground that the principal or main use of the goods alone should decide whether the goods preserved to be called drug intermediates. He also said that the tax authorities had no right to inquire how the importer intends to use the goods.3. The learned counsel tor the department said that the adipic acid is used only in the manufacture of nylon or polyurethane foams. It has not been shown to be used as a drug intermediate. The action of the Appellate Collector is, therefore, correct and does not call for interference.4. We are unable to agree with the departme...
Bhagwan Dass Taneja Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ268
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) A sample of 'saunF was taken by a Food Inspector from the shop of Bhagwan Dass Taneja on the morning of 11-11-1975. At the time, Bhagwan Dass was not there, but his brother Jeet Lal who has his own shop adjacent to that of Bhagwan Dass, was there. The sample was divided into three parts and sealed in separate bottles. One of them when sent to Public Analyst, brought the following report : Date of Analysis -19.11.75 Insect infestation -Nil Total extraneous matter -2.47, Extraneous matter (inorganic) -0.18% Edible seeds other than fennel -Nil Insect damaged seeds -7.29% Color-No artificial colour present.the same is adulterated due to the presence of 7.29 per cent Insect damaged seeds.' (2) During the course of evidence before the trial colirti, Dr. S V. Pingle who was examined by the prosecution stated that insect damage up to '5/o is not taken exception to nor treated as unfit for human consumption. In fact by amendment introduced in standard of quality for 'saunf in...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT66; 1984(7)DRJ208; 1985(1)SLJ499(Delhi)
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Om Prakash Sharma was appointed as an Inspector (Rationing) under the Delhi Administration on April 30, 1966. His services were terminated on September 28, 1966 under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary 'Service) Rules. He filed a suit (S. No. 286/77) for declaration that the order of termination was illegal and for recovery of Rs...74, 965.00 as arrears of pay and allowances. The/suit was listed for his evidence on January 15, 1979. The appellant was present in person but refused to proceed with the matter on the ground that he had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench in F.A.O. (OS) 27/78 and that this court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter which was to be decided by the Supreme Court. He was called upon to produce the evidence but he refused to do so. The learned single judge consequently directed that the suit be treated as dismissed without prejudice to the result of the suit in case he succeeded in the ...
Oswal Oil Refinery Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT662TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were originally filed as revision applications before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, have come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.2. Both appeals involve a common issue and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order, a copy of which shall be placed on each appeal file.3. The issue is whether the product 'Palmolein' imported by the appellants is an unprocessed vegetable non-essential oil (VNE oil) eligible for exemption from additional (countervailing) duty of customs on the footing that indigenously produced unprocessed V.N.E. oil is exempt from the central excise duty leviable thereon under Item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET) by virtue of Notification No.33/63-CE, dated 1-3-1963. The further question is whether or not the goods are Palm Oil within the meaning of Notification No. 150/64, dated 19-9-1964 which exempts palm oils from e...
Mac Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC305Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against order No. C-642/BII-144/83 dated 21st March, 1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay which arose from order No. V(14E)4-6/ 1980/4609 dated 31-12-1981 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The dispute is with respect to a medical preparation of M/s. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. which the appellants call Kemicetine Vaginal Suppositories (KVS) which contain the antibiotic chloramphenicol (CAF). The preparation is manufactured in two different strengths, namely, 0.25 gms and 0.50 gms chloramphenicol content. The KVS preparations arc classified as patent and proprietary medicines and are assessed under item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arose when the central excise issued five demand notices listed below :---------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Period of demand Total amount of Date of duty involved demand-------------------------------------------------------------- Rs.5. 1-1-...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. C.K. Daphtary
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD50(Delhi)
1. The first point, which is common to all these appeals, is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in deleting the assets in the name of Mrs. Sushila Daphtary and Mr. Anil Chander Daphtary Trust from the net wealth. Briefly stated, the facts are: The assessee, a leading jurist of the country and Solicitor General of India at the relevant time, created by a registered document dated 15-10-1951, executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 2,362.50, a trust in favour of his unmarried daughters, Sunita and Leela, and appointed his wife, Smt. Sushila Daphtary, and major son, Shri Anil Chander Daphtary, as the trustees. The trust deed provided that the assessee, the settlor, was desirous of providing for his wife and children by settling upon a trust a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was, thus, settled on trust. The assessee earlier entered into an agreement on 26-7-1950 with one Ram Karan Chothmal Kedia for the purchase of an immovable property at Napean Sea Roa...
PolyformalIn (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC35Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appellants are manufacturers of resins falling under Item No.15A(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET). Resins were in the list of goods to which Central Excise Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976 applied. In terms of the notification, manufacturers whose clearances of the listed goods in the financial year excluded the base clearance fixed by the Assistant Collector in the manner laid down in the notification were eligible for exemption from duty to the extent of 25% of the duty leviable on the excess clearances. The base clearance of the appellants was fixed as 114.151 M.T. by the Assistant Collector on 22-12-1978. The appellants had crossed the base clearance figure...
V.P. Dhingra Vs. Nihal Singh, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi8; ILR1985Delhi482
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an important question of the inter- pretation of Section 15(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rules 79(a), 81 and 82 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The decision turns on the question whether a candidate who has withdrawn his candidature under Rule 19 is included within the words 'candidates at the election'. (2) A general election of the councillors for the purposes of constituting the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short called the Corporation) under Section 3 of the Act was held on February 5, 1983. The last date for making the nominations was January 10, 1983. Besides the petitioner and respondents 1 to 7 herein, S/Shri Om Parkash, Hem Raj, Mohd. Aftab, Banarsi Lal, Som Nath and Raghunandan also filed their nomination papers from Ward No. 75 (Suiwalan) of t...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hico Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT645TriDel
1. Since the issue involved in all the 8 cap-tioned appeals is common, we are disposing of all the appeals by this common order, a copy of which shall be kept in each of the appeal files.2. We shall refer to the facts of appeal No. 829/80-C. Hico Products imported a consignment of lauryl alcohol which was assessed to basic Customs duty under heading No. 29.01/45 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and to additional (countervailing) Customs duty corresponding to the Central Excise duty leviable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). The importer paid the duty so assessed vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 159 dated 29-12-1979. Later on, Hico Products claimed refund of the additional duty paid on the ground that lauryl alcohol, being a fatty alcohol, was correctly classifiable under heading 15.08/13 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and so did not attract additional duty by virtue of Customs exemption Notification No. 48, dated 1-3-1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the cla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »