Delhi Court October 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.
Ratan Exports Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC698Tri(Delhi)
1. Both appeals raise common questions and were therefore heard together. M/s. Ratan Exports Ltd. applied for and obtained an advance licence under the duty exemption scheme provided under Import Policy 1984-85 for import of "Moulded sheets of ABS Resins together with handles and locks of different sizes -of black, burgundy or brown colours" valued at Rs. 42,35,000/-. The licence was granted on 22-10-1984, the duty exemption entitlement certificate being dated 27-10-1984. Subsequently, at the request of the appellants, the licence was amended to describe the material to be imported as "moulded sheets of ABS resins (with lower lids and covers) together with handles and locks of different sizes of black, burgundy or brown colour-1,20,000 sheets". This amendment was granted under letter dated 1-2-1985. In accordance with the licence and the certificate, the appellants, who had obtained an order for supply of 60,000 attache cases to be manufactured out of the imported materials, opened a ...
Rico Industries and Rico Sales Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC239Tri(Delhi)
1. E/Appeal (T) No. 841/82-B1 is a revision application filed by M/s.Rico Industries, Ludhiana against the order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs dated 25.8.1981. E/Appeal (T) No. 841-A/82-B1 is a revision application filed by M/s. Rico Sales India against the same order. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both these appeals they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Rico Industries (for the purposes of easy reference called as Appellant No. 1) is a partnership concern engaged in the manufacture of sewing machines subject to Central Excise Duty under Tariff Item 68 prior to the grant of unconditional exemption with effect from 19.6.1980. The first appellant's clearances for home consumption during 1977-78 and 1978-79 remained below Rs. 30,00,000/- and they were enjoying the exemption under Notification No. 176/77-CE dated 18.6.1977. The value of duty free clearances were curtailed to Rs. 15,00,000/- under Notificatio...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Synthetic Cutting Tools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC78
1. M/s. Synthetic Cutting Tools Manufacturing Company manufacture resin impregnated/coated discs of glass fabrics which are excisable under item 22-F of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The 'Assistant Collector under order dated 7.7.1979 held these discs liable for duty under tariff item No. 22F CET as they were not eligible for the exemption under notification No. 87/76-CE dated 16.3.1976. On Appeal the said order was set aside by the Appellate Collector under order dated 20.11.8.0. He held that the fabric continues to be the fabric even when cut into discs and as the entitlement of full exemption to the fabrics is not in dispute the discs were also entitled to the same exemption. The Central Government being of the view that the said order of the Appellate Collector was not proper, legal and correct, issued notice dated 14.5.81 under section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act calling upon the manufacturer to show cause why the order of the Appel...
indo Lowenbrau Breweries Ltd. Vs. Padam Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT111; 1987(12)DRJ101
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) filed by the petitioner Indo Lowenbrau Breweries Ltd. is directed against the order dated 19-3-1986 passed by Shri Padam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepting the revision petition of the complainant had directed the learned magistrate who had entertained the complaint, to summon the accused persons including the present petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and to decide the complaint on merits according to law. (2) M. S. Yadav, Advocate was the complainant and he brought the complaint under Sections 269/273 Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and the shopkeeper D. N. Joshi of WZ-373, Sri Nagar, Shakurbasti, Delhi. It was on 26-6-1985 that the complainant was at the house of his relation at premises No. WZ-59, Sri Nagar Shakur Basti, Delhi to ...
Sudha Vs. Mahesh Chand Jhamb
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi174; 31(1987)DLT166; 1987(12)DRJ107
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The appellant before me filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations of the matrimonial offence of cruelty are contained in paras 4 to 9 of the petition. One of the issues framed was as to whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged. The petition was tried and dismissed upon the finding on this issue against the appellant. The learned Additional District Judge found that the allegations made in paras 4 to 8 are vague and not in conformity with Rule 7(iv) in the absence of disclosure of date, month, time and also the place of the commission of the matrimonial offence of cruelty. The incident of cruelty as mentioned in para 9 of the petition was found as unsubstantiated. The petition was dismissed by the order dated 19/10/1985. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Act seeks the reversal of the decree of the trial Court and ...
S. Mohinder Singh Saluja Vs. Vanson Shoes
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes57; 1987(12)DRJ119
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner, S. Mohinder Singh Saluja is the owner/landlord of the property No. 6/6 W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. M/s. Vanson Shoes, a registered partnership firm, to start with, was the tenant of the part of the ground floor of the said premises but in the year 1971, they become the tenant of the whole of the ground floor, including the mezzanine floor at a consolidated rent of Rs. 435.00 per mensem. Subsequently the rent was increased to Rs. 515.00 including the water charges. The rent has since been paid to the landlord till the filing of the present complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) The case set up by the tenant in brief is that at the time of the creation of the tenancy, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent- landlord will carry out the white wash and minor repairs of the tenancy premises. In spite of the repeated requests and reminders, the landlord failed to get the premises in good shape as per the terms of...
income-tax Officer Vs. Manav Hitkari Trust.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: [1987]20ITD42(Delhi)
ORDER1. The ground in this revenues appeal is in the following terms :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC has erred in allowing the benefit of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though there was a clear-cut default of section 12A (b) of the Act, as the assessed failed to file the audit report under section 12A (b) and had no right under section 139(5) to revise the return as the original return was not in time and in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in O. P. Malhotra v. CIT : [1981]129ITR379(Delhi) .'The assessment year involved is 1983-84 and the order brought in appeal is of 18-2-1986 passed by the AAC, Range T, New Delhi, for which the assessment was made on 20-11-1985 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. A return was filed on 7-9-1983 without audited accounts. Since the assessed was a trust case he was given an opportunity to explain as to why benefits of section 11 be not denied in view of the provisions of section 12...
Apar Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC162
1. M/s. Apar Private Limited has filed an appeal being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. A-2028/BII-236/82 dated 14th December, 1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Apar Private Limited through its Division, Special Oil Refinery filed a classification list under protest for power oil transformer oil (T.I. 8) vide their letter dated 17-4-1978. The appellants had claimed that since the transformer oil base stock is already duty-paid, no further duty should be recovered on the transformer oil as the process of conversion does not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A show cause notice dated 7-2-1979 was issued to appellants disputing the stand taken by them and desiring them to show cause as to why central excise duty at the appropriate rate should not be recovered on the transformer oil (T.I. 8) manufactured by them out of duty-paid base oils falling under a diff...
Kishan Chand and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC345Tri(Delhi)
1. All the captioned appeals are directed against the common orders-in-original No. 3/Gold/83 dated 9-8-1983 and 17/Customs/83 dated 9-8-1983, both passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh imposing different personal penalties on the appellants namely; Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs, 1,00,000/- under the Customs Act on the appellant, Shri Kishan Chand; Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Customs Act on the appellant, Shri Jaswant Rai; Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Customs Act on the appellant Shri Sudershan Kumar; and Rs. 5,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 5,000/~ under the Customs Act on the appellant, Smt. Usha. Besides these penalties, the Adjudicating Authority also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 75,000/-under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 75,000/- under the Customs Act on one Shri Raman Kumar (d Pandit w...
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC209
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bombay has filed an appsal being aggrieved from Order No. V-Adj(M) R-243/80 of 29-10-1985 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bombay manufacture among other products transformer oil base stock (T.O.B.S.) classifiable under item No. 11A(4) of central excise tariff. The tariff rate of duty of this product was Rs. 3,500 per M.T. basic plus 5% of B.E.D. as special duty with effect from 1-3-1978 but effective rate of duty on the same was kept at Rs. 1172.50 per M.T. basic plus 5% of B.E.D. as special duty by virtue of Govt, of India notification No. 43/78, dated 1-3-1978. This notification was rescinded by a notification No. 288/79, dated 17-11-1979 and another notification No. 287/79, dated 17-11-1979 was introduced whereby the effective rate of duty on T.O.B.S. satisfying the specifications mentioned thereunder and intended for use in the manufacture of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »