Delhi Court November 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 51 results (0.021 seconds)TaksIn Ahmed Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR183
J.D. Jain (1) The petitioner was convicted of an offence u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act by a Met. Mgte vide his judgment dated 13.1.82 and he was sentenced to R.I. for one year. Feeling aggrieved, he went in appeal but with no success, the appeal having been dismissed by an- Add. Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 17.5.83. Hence, he has come up in revision against his conviction and sentence. (2) The fact of this case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was tried on the charge that he was apprehended by the police on 27.6.74 at about 7.30 P.M. when he was present near the tent factory of M/s. Lal Singh & Sons, Wazir pur Industrial Area, Delhi. On interrogation he gave out his name as Gaffar which turned out to be false. Eventually it transpired that he was a Pakistan national and had entered India in 1957 on a Pakistan passport with Indian visa endorsed on it. However, he did not return to Pakistan and over-stayed in India until the date he was apprehended by the police. A cas...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyut Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT558TriDel
1. This is an application for dispensing with a deposit of Rs. 2,44,737/- in terms of the proviso to Section 35(F) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and stay of the recovery thereof.2. Prim a facie, a perusal of the adjudication order itself does not reveal that any specified amount of money was demanded in terms thereof, from either the applicant or others who were parties to the adjudication towards duty, notwithstanding that the amount of duty alleged to have been evaded was quantified in para 18 thereof. The penalty that was levied on the applicant was, however, admittedly, recovered by enforcing a Bank Guarantee furnished by the applicant.3. In the result, it does not appear that "the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded" from "the person desirous of appealing against the decision". [Section 35(F) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944] 4. Accordingly, since no duty had been demanded by the order under appeal, there is no question of making a...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC9
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claim on the ground of time bar of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Their claim arose under exemption notification No. 198/76-Central Excises dated 16-6-1976 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production).2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter.We observe that the appellants' base clearances had been approved by the Assistant Collector on 29-4-1977. They crossed the base figure on 25-2-1978, Therefore, from this date onwards, they were entitled to pay duty on their clearances at the concessional rate but they went on paying it at the normal higher rate. They say that they did it because of the prevailing practice but are unable to substantiate this alleged practice. Be that as it may, the law gave them another remedy under Rule 11-to claim refund of the duty paid in excess. But the rule laid down the condition that such refund should be claimed from the Assistant Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!General Industrial Society Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(23)ELT550TriDel
1. This appeal relates to the levy of additional duty of customs (popularly referred to as "Countervailing Duty" or "C.V.D."), on a consignment of Viscose Rayon Staple Fibre imported by the appellants.2. Appearing for the appellants, Miss Anjali Bahl set out the basic facts, which are not in dispute. It would be useful to mention some relevant dates- 5-1-79 Two notifications, viz. Notification No. 6/79 and Notification No. 8/79, both under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, were issued on this date. Under Notification No. 6 of 1979 viscose staple fibre (among other articles) was exempted from the whole of the basic duty of Customs under the Customs Tariff Act. Under Notification No. 8/79, viscose staple fibre was exempted from so much of the C.V.D. leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act as was in excess of Rs. 1.32 paise per kg. 2.1. Both notifications ended with the sentence, "This notification shall be in force upto and inclusive of the 31st December, 1979". 3-8-79 ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Madhu Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC248Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot (the appellant) against Order No. T-30/RKT-1/85 dated 11-2-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi (at Bombay) in favour of M/s. Madhu Chemicals, Bhavnagar (the respondent).2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent firm holds an excise licence for the manufacture of "all other goods not elsewhere specified"- Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short). It was engaged in the manufacture of Precipitated Silica and had submitted a classification list on 1-4-1982, effective from the same date, for the said product which was approved by the Superintendent of Central Excise, under Item 68, CET.However, on 9-8-1982, the respondent wrote to the Department claiming that as per Notification Mo. 23/55 dated 29-4-1955, the product would correctly fall under Item 14, CET (and not Item 68) and was entitled to unconditional exemption fr...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modern Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC7
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 19-11-84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.By the said order, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order dated 4-6-84 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hubli. He allowed the appeal on two grounds. Firstly, the Collector (Appeals) held that the proceedings leading to the adjudication were improper and not in compliance with the provisions of law. According to the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Hubli had issued a show cause notice dated 15-3-83 to the respondents. It would appear from the record that the Assistant Collector, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, directed withdrawal of the said show cause notice vide his order dated 7-11-83. However, the said Assistant Collector passed another order on 11-11-83 to the effect that his earlier order dat...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Pictures Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC12
1. A question relating to the maintainability of the instant appeals had been raised on behalf of the Respondent herein and debated at some length before us, when we had an opportunity to hear with interest and attention the learned arguments of not merely the Counsel of both parties but Shri R.K. Jain, invited to appear as an intervener, as well. (i) the appellant, a proprietary concern (owned by Shri B.R.P. Chibber) imported and cleared certain studio camera and equipment on payment of duty of Rs. 4,64,022.64 (Rupees Four Lakhs, Sixty Four Thousand, Twenty Two and paise sixty four only); (ii) a notice of demand-cum-show cause dated 3-11-1981 and purporting to be one issued under the proviso to S. 28 of the Customs Act, (1962) (the Act, for short) was issued to the appellant demanding payment of Rs. 1,31,615.57 (Rupees One Lakh, Thirty One Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifteen and paise fifty seven only) towards duty short-levied or explain as to why the aforesaid amount should not be re...
Tag this Judgment!The Fort William Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR43(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT240
M.K. Chawla, J.1. The Fort William Co. Ltd. is the petitioner. Their application is under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying for the issuance of directions to respondent No. 2, Director General of Supplies and Disposal, to file contract containing arbitration clause and reference of disputes, mentioned in the petition, to arbitration.2. As per the averments, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement whereby respondent No. 2 placed an order for the supply of wire rope on the petitioner Co. on 19-6-76. The petitioner Co. accepted the offer and a regular contract was executed. The petitioner Co. executed the order in full. The Director General of Supplies and Disposal made 98% payment of the bill amounting to Rs. 1,20,186/-. Respondent No. 2 later on raised a false and frivolous claim against the petitioner Co. by imposing a liquidated damage amounting to Rs. 10,034/- on account of allegedly late supply of material. The petitioner Co. refuted the contention as a...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Lal Shriram (P) Ltd. Vs. Naresh Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ123
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code restraining the appellants from dispossessing the respondent Naresh Chand Jain from premises No. 6, Pusa Road, New Delhi. The order was passed in Suit No. 208/84 filed by Naresh Chand Jain for declaration and permanent injunction on the plea that he is an owner by adverse possession of one room, kitchen and bath room. This litigation has earlier history. The premises in question, namely, 6, Pusa Road, New Delhi, were let out by the appellants to Prakash Chand Jain. The appellants filed the proceedings for eviction against Prakash Chand Jain and the present respondent Naresh Chand Jain on various grounds, inter alias that Prakash Chand Jain had unlawfully sub-let a part of the premises to Naresh Chand Jain. The Rent Controller granted a decree for eviction. The order was confirmed by the Tribunal and by this Court. In this Court an attempt was made t...
Tag this Judgment!Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1990LC69(Delhi); 1986(24)ELT205(Del)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. The Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., petitioner No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') are challenging the order in revision passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 25th September, 1980 rejecting the revision application of the petitioners against an order dated 23rd August, 1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The petition inter alias involves the question of the effect of repeal of Rules 10 and 10-A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 which were repealed vide Notification No. 267/77, dated 6th August, 1977 whereby new Rule 10 was substituted in the Central Excise Rules. The petition also involves, inter alia, another question relating to true scope and construction of Clause 6 of the Notification No. 189/73-C.E., dated 4th October, 1973. 2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are briefly that M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., the Holding Company have been in the b...
Tag this Judgment!