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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. D.P. Metal Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC665Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal in hand is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.1145/CHC/84 dated 31-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi, seting aside the demand of duty made by the Adjudicating Authority and also reducing the personal penalty from Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 200/- only.2. Factual backdrops : During the course of periodical inspection of the accounts of the respondent firm it was observed that the respondent received back rolling bearing from different customers as defective goods for re-conditioning or repair, accounted for the same in their repair register maintained in form V but in lieu of these rolling bearings they had sent fresh rolling bearings from their stock which were cleared without accountal in their statutory records and without payment of duty and which they manufactured out of the unaccounted for raw material. In the final analysis of the inspection it was found that the respondent had cleared from 11-12-1972 to 19-9-1977 rolling bearings val...
Hicks thermometers (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC299
1. These are three Revision Applications filed by the appellants before the Government of India. On the setting up of this Tribunal, these have been transferred here and have been heard as appeals before us.2. The point at issue is classification of Soft Capillary Glass Tubing and Bulb Glass Tubing under the Central Excise Tariff. The department has classified them under Item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff whereas appellants are seeking classification under Central Excise Tariff Item 23A(2).3. Shri D.N. Mehta, the learned advocate submits on behalf of the appellants that the Soft Capillary Glass Tubing cannot be treated as ordinary Glassware, as has been done by the department as they are essentially in the category of laboratory glassware. These two categories of glassware, it is pointed out, are basically distinct even in the matter of the nature of the product. Ordinary glassware, it is stated, is made from a mixture of soda and lime. It is affected by weather and after someti...
Bihar Air Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT1011TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture oxygen and acetylene gases, in their factory at Jamshedpur. In 1977, they obtained an import licence for the import of empty oxygen gas cylinders. The import licence dated 22.1.1977 was endorsed for Project Import on 30th March, 1977.2. They then imported 500 gas cylinders and filed a Bill of Entry No.1-980 dated 22.4.1977. The goods were classified under Tariff Heading 73.24 and Customs duty and additional -duty was charged on these goods.In other words, the assessment was made on merits and not as a Project import.3. The appellants later preferred a refund claim on the ground that they did not get the benefit of Project import in respect of consignment of 500 gas cylinders at the time of assessment, though the import licence was endorsed for Project Import. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim observing that the appellants did not register the purchase order with the Customs as Project Import as per rules before clearance of the goods. The ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Shoe-lace Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC81
1. The present proceedings arise out of Order-in-Appeal No. 1043/80 dated 19.7.1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise in favour of M/s. Bharat Shoe Lace Works, Bombay (the respondent before us). On examination of the records of the case, the Central Government came to the tentative view that the said order was not legal, proper and correct. Therefore, it issued a notice dated 30.6.1981 to the respondent under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, calling upon it to show cause why the Appellate Collector's order should not be set aside or such order as considered fit should not be passed. In due course, these proceedings have come to this Tribunal in terms of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Revenue.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent, at the material time, was engaged in the manufacture of Braided Fibre Glass Sleevings falling under i...
Om Prakash @ Leela Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT114
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) The appellant 0m Prakash @ Leela was convicted under section 325 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment there under for five years and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were passed on the same day i.e. 18th November, 1985. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence the appellant has come up to this court in appeal. (2) The case was initially filed under section 307 Indian Penal Code and even the charge was formed by Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, under that very provision of law, but while recording the judgment of conviction Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge came to the view that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to murder and so he held him guilty under sect...
Sham Sunder Lal Vs. Delhi Cloth Mills Chemical Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR9]; 1987RLR75
Mahinder Narain (1) By this petition, the employee/petitioner questions the award dated 26.3.73, made on reference of an Industrial Dispute. The terms of the reference were, 'Whether the dismissal of Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Gupta is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'(2) It is asserted by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 issued a charge-sheet dated 12.11.69 to the petitioner, falsely alleging that the petitioner in genuinely applied for leave on medical ground from the afternoon of30.10.69 to 7.11.69. The petitioner asserts that the charges were answered in detail by him. (3) An enquiry was ordered and Mr. R.C. Narang was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the employee. The E.O. gave his findings on 25.2.70, on the basis of which the services of the petitioner were alleged to have been illegally and wrongfully terminated by dismissalorder dated 18.3.70. Thereafter the...
Sat Pal Manchanda Vs. M.L. Wadhawan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes47; 31(1987)DLT4; 1986(11)DRJ324
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Writ No. 333/86 filed by Sat Pal Manchanda and Criminal Writ No. 334/86 filed by his brother Raj Pal Manchanda.(2) In these writ petitions the challenge is to the orders of detention dated 19th March 1986, passed by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). The ground on which the order has been passed is that the detention is necessary with a view to prevent the petitioners from abetting the smuggling of good.(3) In the orders of detention it is mentioned that the detenus were also furnished with the grounds on which the detention orders were passed. The perusal of the grounds discloses that apart from other material, which was relied upon by the detaining authority while passing detention order, the detaining authority also took into consideration the statement...
income-tax Officer Vs. Kabul Hing House.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]20ITD47(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri Ch. G. Krishnamurthy, Senior Vice President -This is an appeal filed by the ITO stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 levied by the ITO under section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The assessed is a registered firm dealing in the purchase and sale of hing. In the year under appeal on a turnover of Rs. 33,20,710 a gross profit of Rs. 85,215 was disclosed, which worked out to 2.5 per cent. The assessment in this case was originally completed on a total income of Rs. 2,67,385 but that assessment was set aside by the AAC on appeal. In the reassessment that was made, the ITO noticed several discrepancies in the stock particulars maintained by the assessed in respect of the hing dealt in. After listing out all the defects that the ITO notice in the maintenance of accounts and the various omissions he found and after considering the assesseds Explanationn in respect of these omissions, the ITO mad...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC896Tri(Delhi)
1. Shri Thakur, S.D.R., for the department submits that in these cases the department is the appellant and the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. is the respondent and all these appeals have arisen out of order-in-appeal Nos. 8 to 13/OR/84 dated 28-1-84.2. In all these cases the main issue involved is the same namely as to whether the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. is the manufacturer of excisable goods and consequently whether it is liable to comply with the Central Excise Laws and procedures and liable to duty and penalty in case of non-compliance.3. It was, therefore, his request that all these cases could be heard together and a common order could be passed. Shri Mohanty agrees.4. Shri Thakur submits that in the order-in-appeal against the Collector (Appeals) has remanded back the cases to the Superintendent for denovo adjudication.5. In all these cases the Superintendent has imposed a penalty of a small amount of less than Rs. 1000/-. However, these cases are fit for admission for be...
Keltron Power Devices Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC307
1. The subject-matter of imports in all these appeals is an item described uniformly as : 'Silicon Power Transistor chips' in specified number of pieces. These were assessed to duty, at the time of respective clearance, under T.I. 85.18/27(1) of the CTA on the view that they fall within the category of : 'Diods, Transistor and similar semi-conductor devices'. Appellants' claim for refund of duty, seeking re-assessment of the goods under Chapter 38.01/19 of the CTA or, alternatively, for benefit of Notification No. l72/77-Cus assuming that the goods were classifiable under TI 85.18/27(1) CTA, was rejected on the view that, having regard to the wording of Section Note 2(s) to Chapter 38 (Section VI), read in conjunction with Note 5 to Chapter 85, the goods imported in a given number of pieces and described as 'Silicon Power Transistor Chips' would stand excluded from the category of 'miscellaneous and chemical products' as they have acquired the essential characteristics of a 'semi-cond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »