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. Binod Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC255Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufacturer of cotton yarn and cotton fabrics - were served with a show cause notice dated 17-8-1983 for demanding an amount of Rs. 7570.78p as being a short-levy arising during the period 1-1-1978 to 23-11-1979 on the ground that the respondents had opted for payment of duty on yarn in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 49A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to this Rule the duty on cotton and cellulosic spun yarn used in the manufacture of cotton fabrics was permitted to be paid at the time of removal of cotton fabrics. In addition to the yarn, duty interest at the rate of 1.5% of such duty was required to be paid if the fabrics were cleared at the grey (unprocessed) stage and interest at the rate of 3% was chargable if the fabrics removed were processed. The respondents had also filed a classification list showing levy of interest at 1.5% on calendered fabrics. Later on, it appeared to the Excise author...
P.S. Metal Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC489
1. Shri Pratapchand Samnaji, Prop. M/s P.S. Metal Corporation, Shop No.1, Khan Estate, Thakurdwar Road, Bombay-400 002 has filed an appeal being aggrieved Order No. SG-Misc. 79/85A/S/10-49/S5 L SIIB dated 24-6-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Customs House, Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s P.S. Metal Corporation had imported four containers containing brass dross. M/s Saru (Asia) Co. (PTE) Ltd., Singapore supplied the goods @ US cents 45/lb CIF. The copper content declared in the invoices was 52 to 55%. M/s M.S. Khadpe & Co. CHA No. 11/208 filed B/E Nos. 396/136 and 396/137 for the clearance of the said consignments. The clearance of the goods has been claimed under OGL Appx. 6 Sr. No. 2 List 8 Part III of AM 85 Policy.The goods were examined under the supervision of S.I.I.B. on 4th March, 1985 and reported to contain genuine brass dross. The samples were also forwarded for test to Dy. C.C. as well as for inspection to SIIB. On inspection...
New Rama Motors Vs. A.N. Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT3b
S.B. Wad, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, refusing temporary injunction to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed the suit claiming to be the tenants of the open plot No. 11-12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and have asked for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from dis-possessing the petitioners from the suit property. The trial court had granted temporary injunction in favor of the petitioners. That order was reversed by the impugned order.2. The property consisting of two plots measuring about 1000 sq. yards is adventage point on the Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar. The respondent claims that the present value of the property is about Rs. 40 lacs. Considering the location of the property, its measurement and the sky recketing prices of land in Delhi it does not appear to be an exaggerated claim. The property belongs to the respondent and his brother and a partition suit is pending between them in this court. Originally...
Sarang Spring Manufacturing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC1Tri(Delhi)
1. Before the appeals were taken up, the Bench heard the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal No. 1546/86-B1. Considering that this was only a supplementary appeal that arose from the fact that the Appellate Collector passed one order in respect of two orders in original, the Bench condoned the delay and commenced the hearing of the two appeals.2. The appellants were correct when they said in their revision petition dated 12.10.1981 that the Appellate Collector entered into the aspect of classification which was not a dispute before him for determination. The only dispute was whether end-use certificates were necessary for the purpose of notification No. 99/71-CE.3. By his order in appeal No. 524/BD-21/81 and 525/BD-22/81 dated 25th April, 1981 the Appellate Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected preferential assessment under notification No. 99/71-CE, because he said the springs were not classifiable under tariff item 34A. It was only those springs classifiab...
Techma Engineering Enterprise Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC511Tri(Delhi)
1. By his order No. 36(52) 82-Collr-30/82 dated 5-4-1982, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta called upon M/s. Techma Engineering Enterprise to file declaration in terms of notification No. H1/78-CE to the proper ' central excise officer.The facts leading to this order are quite simple and may be related here. Officers of central excise searched the sales office and godowns of the appellants, M/s. Techma Engineering Enterprise, and seized books of accounts and goods, namely, bolts and nuts falling under item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff, because the factory was not able to produce evidence of payment of duty on the goods. The central excise said that the company supplied raw materials to different manufacturers who manufactured bolts and nuts on their behalf on payment of job charges, during the period of April, 1977 to November 1981 and during which a quantity of 96,154.8 kgs. bolts and nuts valued Rs. 531,576.80 were manufactured. The department called upon the company by a...
Mahendra Garg (P.) Family Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD392(Delhi)
The assessments admittedly having been completed in one hearing only and without requiring the presence of the settlor of the trust, a notice under section 263 was rightly issued as the Commissioner was of the opinion that assessments were made in haste and without proper and adequate enquiries and, therefore, these were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.1. These two second appeals are directed against the common order dated 22-11-1984 passed by the Commissioner, Agra under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') vacating the assessments framed on 25-11-1982 on returned incomes of Rs. 35,073 and Rs. 42,230 in the status of an AOP in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively. The assessee filed returns in the name and style of Mahendra Garg (P.) Family Specific Trust, Noorigate Agra on 3-2-1982 declaring incomes as stated above.In respect of the assessment year 1979-80 the following entries in the order sheet were made by the ...
V.K. Gujral Vs. Delhi Administration and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC242; 1987(31)ELT876(Del)
1. The present petition of Shri V. K. Gujral is for quashing of the order of A. C. M. M., New Delhi, dated 30-5-1985, whereby on the complaint of Shri K. K. Sood, Air Customs Officer, Palam Airport, New Delhi, the petitioner was summoned for an offence publishable under Sections 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 2. Before the factual and legal contentions raised by learned counsel for the department are taken into consideration, it will be relevant to keep in mind the salient features of the complaint. On 5-2-1985, the Customs Officer examined a consignment consisting of 5 packages covered against Airway Bill No. 057-74752462, dated 23-1-1985, which landed at Delhi Airport vide Flight No. AF-175, dated 24-1-1985. The importer of the said consignment was Mohd. Ali Abdi, Second Secretary, Somalia Embassy, New Delhi. The said consignment consisted of T.V./V.C.R./Music System and Washing Machine. Due to suspicion, the said consignmen...
V.C. Rishi Vs. S.L. Saluja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT132
Sananda Bhandare, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 5th January 1985 whereby the application of the petitioner moved under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the objections was rejected. (2) The petitioner is the objector in respect of execution of the decree obtained by respondents I to 5 against respondents 6 to 11 herein. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the premises in question as a tenant and the decree was obtained in his absence without making him a party. In the application for amendment, the petitioner has sought to give some details regarding the premises in his occupation, however the court below has refused to grant this amendment on the ground that these facts are already on record and. thereforee, the amendment is not necessary. This amendment giving further particulars and details of property in possessi...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ganesh Chemicals Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT48TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II is whether respondents manufacture Dimethyl Sulphate is eligible for exemption under Notification 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 as drug intermediate.2. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 published notification March 1, 1975 prescribing that the goods specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification are exempt from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Item 19 of the Schedule reads as under: "All drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified." The respondents in respect of their product Dimethyl Sulphate claimed exemption under the notification as drug intermediate. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan-I Division by communication dated 14-3-1980 intimated the respondents that from the process of manufacture disclosed by them to the Department it is noticed that ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC369Tri(Delhi)
1. The above-captioned eight appeals have been filed before the Tribunal, under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, assailing a consolidated order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, on 30.3.1985. The date of receipt of this order, which is appealed against, in the present set of appeals, is given against Column No. 3 in the appeal (Form No. C.A. 3) as 2.5.1985. The appeal was first presented at Bombay before the West Regional Bench on 27.5.1986 but has been received in the Registry of this Tribunal on 31.7.1986. The appeals, which have been filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under authority and directions of the Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay, in terms of Section 129A(2) of the Act, are accompanied by an application for 'condonation of delay', under signatures of the Principal Collector of Customs himself. The application in each case, received on the same date as the appeals ; namely, on 31.7.198...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »