Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 9 of about 90 results (0.032 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lakhanpal National Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC190Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi (at Bombay), No. T-92/BRD-45/85 dated 28th October, 1985. The Collector (Appeals) said that the Assistant Collector clubbed the two items calots and pellets of zinc together though they fall under two tariff sub-heads 26B(1) and 26B(2a), as if they were synonymous, a finding which is not based on any reasoning. He said that he could not endorse the classification of pellets as calots under tariff Item 26B(2a). He, therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, No. V/26B(3)-1/MP/77 dated 9.7.1981 [The Appellate Collector gives the Assistant Collector's order the date 9/10.1.1981, but the date on the order itself is 9.7.1981. The Collector's appeal also gives the date as 9/10.1.1981]. The result of the Collector's order is that the goods which the assessees call pellets would not be assessable to duty under 26B(2a).2. The learned SDR beg...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC66Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed a revision application before the Government of India against the order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta dated 10-6-1981. The appeal was against the order of the RT-12 assessment by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Rourkela in respect of 17 matters. The annexure to the appellate order contains the particulars of the orders as also the details of the demands. Since one revision application was filed as per the procedure then in vogue the supplementary appeal Nos. 1822 to 1838 of 1986 have now been filed with applications for condonation of delay. The supplementary appeals have been filed for purpose of record and hence the application for condonation of delay Nos. 644 to 660 of 1986 are allowed.2. The appeals relate to finalisation of assessment on RT 12 returns and DD 2 demands. Shri Kampani, learned Consultant initially urged that the Tribunal had considered the issue in Order No. 415/86/B1 dated 4-7-1986 in the case of M/s Steel Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Husena Metal Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC1
1. In the classification list No. 2/79, filed by the appellants, M/s.Husena Metal Works, Bombay, they had described the excisable goods manufactured by them as well as other goods which, according to them, were non-excisable. One of the non-excisable goods described by them was "Johnson Plast Cartridge (Adhesive tape)". Approval in respect of that item was granted provisionally by the Assistant Collector (as seen from the xerox copy of the classification list filed by the appellants). Subsequently a notice was issued calling upon the appellants to show cause why the said product should not be classified under T.I. 46-CET for purposes of levy of duty. The appellants contended in the adjudication that the said product would fall under T.I.68-CET only and would be exempt. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 11.7.80, classification being ordered under tariff item 46-CET. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Collector of...
Tag this Judgment!Mineral Exploration Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC468Tri(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals emanated from the same Order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The facts in both cases are common. We, therefore, heard them together and proceed to dispose of them together by a common order.2. The appellants imported Longyear Model Hydro 44 drilling machine with accessories and spare parts. This was assessed to customs duty under heading 87.03 of CTA and to additional duty on the basis that the imported drilling machine fitted in a truck was liable to additional duty under Item 68 and the truck part of it under Item 34 of the CET in view of the Explanation II of Item 34 of CET. The appellants cleared the goods after payment of customs duty claimed to be under protest and subsequently made an application for refund of part of the duty claiming re-assessment of the goods under heading 84.23 on the ground that the imported machine was Hydro 44 Drill with accessories and spares. The Assistant Collector noted that the machine imported was mounted on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dass Chauhan Vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and O ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1223; 1987(12)DRJ66; 1989(40)ELT295(Del)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. This is a petition for the issue of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the release of the brother of the petitioner who has been detained in pursuance of an order made by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi on 12th March, 1986 in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 3(1) read with S. 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act'). 2. Ram Dass Chauhan, a Sweeper employed at the Delhi Airport in Air India, was detained on 12th April, 1986 in pursuance of the above order and the grounds of detention were served on him on the 13th April, 1986. The detention was the result of an incident on the 14/15th July, 1985 at the Delhi Airport when some gold biscuits of foreign origin were recovered from one Daya Ram, also a Sweeper in Air India. The grounds of detention broadly were that the detenu, who was traveling by Air India Flight 301 from Hong Kong to Bombay with a stop over at Delhi, had han...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Shri Kanth Shastri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1583; 31(1987)DLT52; 1987(12)DRJ140
Kirpal, J. 1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of respondent Shri Kanth Shastri who has been charged with committing an offence under S. 153A, Penal Code. 2. It appears that some incident occurred on 29th and 30th December 1971 in Telicheri city of Kerala. The respondent being a printer, publisher and editor of the monthly magazine 'Lokalok' in Hindi printed and published an editorial in that magazine in the issue of January 1972. The charge against the respondent was that this editorial promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindu and Muslim citizens of India which was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between groups of Hindu-Muslim citizens of India and disturbed or was likely to disturb public tranquillity. 3. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. The prosecution, in support of its allegation, examined as many as seven witnesses. The respondent in his statement under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he was a publisher, printer ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahib Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ170
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The only challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of re-entry which had been issued on 24/6/1972 by the Land & Development Office, Delhi.(2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had purchased a plot of land No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.(3) After the building plans had been approved by the Municipal Authorities, a 21 storey bungalow was constructed on the said land. The trouble for the petitioner arose when on 20/11/1969 he let out the said premises for residential-cum-office purposes to respondent No. 2, M/s. Curewel (India) Limited at a monthly rent of Rs. 2300.00 .(4) The petitioner received a letter dated 20/3/1970 from the Ministry of Rehabilitation wherein it was stated that the letting out of the said bungalow residence-commence purposes amounted to a contravention of condition (vi) of the terms and conditions on which the land had been l...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Mohd. SadaruddIn Vs. Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT257; 1987(12)DRJ131
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) Professor Hakim Mohd. Mazhar-uddin Ajmali, a Professor of Diagnosis in the Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College -and also Principal Jamia Tibbia, Delhi took on rent in the year 1940 a portion of the premises in a-double storeyed property bearing No. 7167-7169 situated at Beri Wala Bagh, Near Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Delhi-110006 from a family which migrated to Pakistan during the partition of the country. After the migration of this family, the property was declared as evacuee property and Professor Hakim Mohd. Mazhar-uddin Ajmali became a tenant under the custodian. Later on, this property was purchased by one Jeevan Dass from the Custodian of the evacuee property. Since the property was on two floors and there were two tenancies in respect of these two floors, Jeevan Dass instituted two suits for eviction against Professor Hakim Mohd. Mazharuddin Ajmali on the ground of sub-letting and also on the ground that he had acquired another accommodation for his reside...
Tag this Judgment!General Marketing and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC49
1. Under a Dealer Selling Agreement with M/s. General Motors Scotland Limited, the appellants imported spare parts of TEREX Earth Moving Machinery. The lower authorities have enhanced their import invoice prices by 18% on the ground that other importers of TEREX Spare Parts in India had to pay that much amount extra by way of buying commission to the appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the lower orders and pray that their invoice prices should be accepted as assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. During the hearing before us, the appellants pressed for the following arguments : (1) The Agreement made it clear that the appellants were a nonexclusive dealer in the area comprising Union of India including the States of Sikkim and Bhutan and M/s. General Motors reserved the right to sell TEREX Spare Parts to anybody else also in India. They cited the instance of M/s. Hindustan, Motors who were importing TEREX parts directly from M/s. General Motors at ...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Khanna Vs. Arun Carpets
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT88
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the procedure adopted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in Execution Petition No. 4 of 1982. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that the Rent Controller in Execution Petition is recording evidence of the parties for deciding whether the premises in question are required for bona fide personal need. This according to the petitioner, could not be done in execution. (2) The petitioner let out premises No. D-17, defense Colony, New Delhi to the respondent through their Minaging Partner Mrs. Kamini Sodhani by registered lease deed dated 27th September, 1972 for a period of two years commencing from 1st October, 1972 for residential purpose. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1), (a), (e), (d), (e), (h), (j) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, '958 for eviction of the respondent. Duri...
Tag this Judgment!