Delhi Court January 1986 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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bhagwati Industrial Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT763TriDel
1. This case relates to a demand for duty amounting to Rs. 4,971.60 on 497.160 M.T. of Hard Coke which were in stock with the respondents on 1-3-1978, when hard coke became liable to excise duty under T.I. 11-D of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the respondents was that these goods were "pre-budget stocks" which were lying in a fully manufactured condition prior to 1-3-1978, and therefore no duty could be realised on them. This plea was not accepted by the Assistant Collector. However, on appeal, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise1, Calcutta, accepted this plea and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Thereafter the Central Government initiated proceedings under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as then in force. In the show cause notice dated 15-9-1982 the Central Government observed that prior to 1-3-1978 coke was chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 68. Hence the stock of coke, even though in a fully manufactured condition on 1-3-1978...
C.J. Hewlett and Son (India) Pvt. Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT633TriDel
1. On the appeal being taken up, Shri P.K. Ajwani, SDR raised a preliminary point that the appeal is being filed before the Tribunal as against the order-in-appeal No. S30/27/82-AP, dated 25-11-82, passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin is not signed by the person competent to sign the same in terms of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. Shri Jagdish Kumar is present for the appellant as a representative and the only document he has filed is letter dated 7-1-86 signed by the Chairman of the company authorising him to appear today to make oral or written submissions on his behalf. Shri Jagdish Kumar in reply stated that he is neither the employee of the company nor special power attorney holder and he has come only on the basis of this authority letter.2. Shri Ajwani has drawn our attention to the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 read with Rule 3(2)(c) of the said Rules, which categorically lay down that in case of an appeal being filed...
Mangalam Dyes and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC99Tri(Delhi)
1. Mangalam Dyes and Chemicals XXXVIII/13, A-2, T.D. Road, Ernakulam has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. 21/85(C) dated 15-2-1985 passed by the Collector of Appeals, Central Excise, Madras. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 8-8-1985.Simultaneously the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay.2. The application for condonation of delay was posted for hearing. The matter was called. Shri P.S. Bedi, the learned Consultant on behalf of the appellant has appeared. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. He has pleaded that the date of the order is 15-2-1985 and the same was received by the appellant 2 or 3 days after this. He has pleaded that after receipt of the order the same was handed over to one of the employees of Shri P.K. John, who had lost his bag in the train. In support of his contentions, he has filed an affidavit of Shri P.K. John. He has pleaded that after the loss of t...
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Satya Kumar Mishra
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC52Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 64-Ind./84 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, raises the question of construction of Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in hand are that on 29-6-1982 some contraband goods including cash Rs. 9, 605/- were seized by the Police officers, Torwa Police Station, Bilaspur, from the respondent, Shri Satya Kumar Mishra. On information, the Central Excise Officers on 30-6-1982 visited the Police Station and seized the contraband goods and the cash. A show-cause notice under section 110 (2) of the Customs Act was sent by registered post on 15-12-1982, but the said registered cover was returned by the Postal authorities with the remark "N.F.15-12-1982, 16-12-1982 and out of station deposited for 7 days on 17-12-1982 "and" enquired about the addressee as per the address. It was told that he has not returned and it is no...
Rajinder Singh Vs. Gaon Sabha, Kadipur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT176
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) Civil Writ Petition No-971/84 was decided by us on 27th September, 1984. The said petition had claimed a mandamus to direct the authorities to m.ike suitable entries in the Khasra Girdawari relating to petitioner's cultivating possession of a plot of land situated in village Kadipur, Delhi According to the petitioner, he was cultivating the plot in question for a long time, but the Gaon Sabha had claimed that it was waste land which had vested in the Gaon Sabha. The entries in the Khasra Girdawari showed the petitioner to be in cultivating possession for a number of years, but these entries had not been made in the recent past. (2) In accordance with the petition, we passed the following order : 'WE would accordingly issue a writ in the nature of mandamus without in any way deciding about the petitioner's rights and we direct these authorities to deal with the petitioner's claim within three months. We further direct that the Patwari must visit the place, i e. land in...
indore Bottling Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC117Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 9/1-D/82, dated 28-5-1982 passed by Shri G. Sarangi, Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Indore.2. The facts leading to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant firm, M/s. Indore Bottling Company, manufactures aerated waters falling under Item I-D of the Central Excise Tarriff. By virtue of Notification No. 80/80, dated J 9-6-1980, as amended from time to time, the appellant firm was availing the exemption from Central Excise duty on first clearance of the specified goods upto an aggregate value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in a financial year and in excess thereof was liable to duty. During the checking of accounts of production and clearance, it was observed by the Central Excise officers that the appellant firm had cleared aerated waters valued at Rs. 7,47,773.16 under Gate Pass No. 220 dated 1-4-1981 to Gate Pass No. 472 dated 19-5-1981. On 19-5-1981, the appellant firm cleared the goods valued at Rs. 5,038...
Bombay Dyeing Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC87Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government against Order-in-appeal No. 169/81 dated 23-2-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.On the setting up of this Tribunal, the Revision Application has been transferred to it in terms of Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Briefly stated, they are that the appellant is an independent processor, processing fabrics with the aid of power. The Central Government, acting in exercise of its powers under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, issued on 18-6-1977, notification No. 135/77-CE which inter alia exempted handloom fabrics processed by independent processors to the extent of 60% of the duty payable thereon. This notification was superseded on 15-7-1977 by another one-226/77 in terms of which the aforesaid duty exemption r...
Nylon Carpet Mfg. Co. (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC76
1. In dispute in this case is the rate of duty applicable to flocked fabrics manufactured by the appellants during the period October 1972 to 19-5-1976. Both sides agree now that such fabrics fell under item 19-1 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is also agreed that the appellants were an independent processor and not a composite mill. But while the Collector has held that the flocked fabrics containing 30% or more of non-cellulosic fibre/yarn attracted the rate of duty under Sub-item (1A) of Item 19-I (which had been introduced with effect from 1-3-1973) and the rest as applicable to cotton fabrics processed in any other manner, the appellants contend that all of their flocked fabrics were entitled to be assessed at the lower concessional rate applicable to cotton fabrics-printed under exemption notification No. 88/69-C.E.dated 1-3-1969. The appellants are also aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on them by the Collector after holding them guilty of not taking out central...
Bidhan Chandra Sinha Vs. Sushmita Sinha and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi387; ILR1986Delhi392
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The husband who is appellant before me, filed an application under Section 13(1)(i), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The .assertion in the petition filed the husband was. thereforee, that the wife, after the solemnization of the marriage had voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than the petitioner; that after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; and that the husband has been deserted by the respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately after the presentation of the petition. (2) The facts as stated in the petition are that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, Smt. Sushmita Sinha alias Sikha Sinha on 13th June, 1978 at Kashini Bazar. Bolpur, District Birbhum, West Bengal. it is asserted in the petition that after the marriage the parties lived at Bolpur and 15 days after the marriage, the petitioner came Delhi and the respondent stayed back...
Joginder Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi19
Aggarwal, J.(1) Joginder Pal Singh, the appellant herein, was tried on the charge of killing his wife Gulshan Kumari. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case found title accused guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him 'to death. There is a reference' for the confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant has also filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. This judgment shall dispose of both the reference and the appeal. (2) The case for the prosecution is this, Satwant Kaur (P.W. 27) Along with her two daughters Daljeet Kaur (P.W. 26) and the deceased Gulshan Kumari resided at Krishna Nagar. Amolak Singh, husband of Satwant Kaur, died sometime in 1978. After the death of Amolak Singh the burden to maintain and manage the family fell on the shoulders of Daljeet Kaur. Daljeet Kaur is a teacher and she takes tuitions. Gulshan Kumari was married to Joginder Pal Singh on 19th December, 1981. (The accused does not admit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »