Delhi Court April 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.
Raman Kishore Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC411Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 934, 935-CH/83 dated 25.11.83 passed in C. No. APPL/DLH/CH/103 dk 112/81 by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that on 19.9.80, the Customs Preventive Staff, Amritsar apprehended one Shri Dinesh Kumar Mehra at the Railway Station, Amritsar and on search of his baggages 230 coins of silver weighing 3.043 Kgs. valued at Rs. 8521.80 P were recovered. On interrogation, he stated that on 17.9.80 he went to Delhi in connection with some assignment of his employer M/s. Castle Mills Depot Katra Jaimal Singh, Amritsar and before his departure for Delhi the appellant gave him a letter for delivery to one Shri Hira Lal, an artisan of Delhi and was also verbally told by the appellant that he should bring silver in the shape of coins from said Shri Hira Lal. However, while admitting the recovery he disowned any concern with the seized coins. Suspect...
Narendra Kumar H. Patel Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC330Tri(Delhi)
(a) a notice to show cause dated 24.4.1979 was issued to the appellant alleging inter alia that - (i) in consequence of information, the officers of the Customs Preventive Unit detected the appellant outside the Railway Station in Jaipur and brought him to their office. On the search of his person various emeralds and rubies of foreign origin aggregating in value Rs. 21,473.50 were recovered; (ii) the weight, value and origin of the recovered stones were ascertained by an expert in the presence of the appellant and independent witnesses; (iii) the appellant was unable to produce any evidence whatsoever to prove the licit import of lawful acquisition, possession control or transportation of the said precious stones of foreign origin; j (iv) accordingly, they were seized under S. 110 of the Customs Act,, 1962 (hereinafter the Act, for short) in a proper Panchnama in the reasonable belief that they had been illicitly imported into India and have been acquired or transported by the appell...
Smt. Koyal Bai and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC669Tri(Delhi)
1. Out of the two captioned appeals, Appeal No. GC(DEL)(T)88/82-NRB is directed against Order-in-Original No. 3/Gold/82 dated 19-4-1982 whereas Appeal No. CD(DEL)(T)1717/ 82-NRB is directed against Order-in-Original No. 3/Customs/1982 dated 1.9-4-1982, both passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Indore (MP) in the proceedings started under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962 against the late Shri Motilal Girdharilal Nema of Maheshwar, Distt. Khargone (MP) on the identical facts. Originally, separate petitions were filed against the said two orders passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, by the present appellants claiming to be the survivors by inheritance of the said Shri Motilal Girdharilal Nema, which now stand statutorily transferred to this Tribunal for being treated and disposed of as appeals. Since both the appeals involve identical facts, they were heard together and are disposed of accordingly by this common order.2. Brief fact...
Robert Lendi Vs. the Collector of Customs and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ55; 1986(3)Crimes54; 1986(11)DRJ157; 1987(12)ECC194; 1987(30)ELT914(Del)
Sharief-Ud-Din, J. 1. The petitioner has moved this application under S. 439 Cr.P.C. 1973 for grant of bail. It came up for hearing before the learned single Judge of this court. During the course of arguments the learned single Judge felt that the question which arises for determination in the petition is important in the sense that it is likely to arise in many cases. The learned single Judge ordered that the matter be referred to a larger Bench. This is how the petition has come up before us. 2. The facts are that the petitioner Robert Lendi is facing trial under Sections 132 and 135(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner had moved an application for bail on 6-2-1986 under S. 437 sub-section (6) Cr.P.C. which was declined by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 15-2-1986. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for grant of bail before the Sessions Court but the learned Addl. Sessions J...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Limited Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC151; 1987(12)LC1062(Delhi); 1986(26)ELT294(Del)
Judgment1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the orders passed by the Excise Authorities whereby the petitioner's refund application was rejected in respect of the petitioner's claim for refund of excess excise duty paid in respect of super-phosphate. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The raw material used for the manufacture of Super-phosphate is known as 'Rock Phosphate'. It is mostly imported from Middle-East countries. Rock Phosphate is a Chemical fertilizer covered by Tariff Item 14HH of the Central Excise Tariff and is a base fertilizer. The duty prescribed under the said Tariff Item 14HH on 'Fertilizers All Sorts' is at the rate of the 10% ad valorem and as such, countervailing duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem was paid in respect of the base fertilizer i.e. Rock Phosphate under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The particulars of the bill of entries, the net quantity shown in the bill of entry and the amount of duty paid...
Niranjan Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes335; 1986(11)DRJ100
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) By order dated 1.6.85 the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as under : (i) Under Section 363 Indian Penal Code I sentence the accused with R I. for 3 years Along with a fine of Rs. 100.00 . In default of the payment of - fine he will suffer further R.I. for one month. (ii) Under Section 366 I .P.C. I sentence the accused with R.I. for 7 years Along with a fine of Rs. 100.00 . In default of payment of fine he will further suffer R.l. for one month. (iii) Under Section 376 Indian Penal Code I sentence the accused with R.I. for 7 years Along with a fine of Rs. 100.00 . In default of payment of fine he will further suffer R.I. for one month. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.(2) The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of filing the present appeal.(3) Unfortunately, learned counsel for the appellant has not cared to put in appearance inspire of the fact that the case ...
P.C. Aggarwal Vs. M.L. Wadhawan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ164
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner, P C. Agarwal. challenges the detention order passed on 30th December, 1985 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He is further seeking quashing of a declaration under Section 9 of the Act made on 3rd February, 1986 The said order and the declaration were passed by Shri M.L Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India (Respondent No. I herein) who is specially empowered under the provisions of the Act on behalf of the Central Government to pass the detention order and also to make the said declaration.(2) The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and abelting the smuggling of goods. A copy of that order is Annexure 'A' to the Writ petition.(3) In the writ petition the virus of Section 9 of the Act ha(r) been challenge...
General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ45Del
Mahinder Narain, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the above said writ petitions which impugn the orders of Shri O.P.Singhla, Presiding Officer Central Labour Court, dated 30th April, 1984 passed in L.C.As. 64 to 69 and 108 of 1978.2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that some workers of the Railways filed separate petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking computation of payment due to them for overtime work done by them. The workmen had asserted that they are holding the posts of Cabinmen since 1965. It was asserted by the workmen that the Cabinmen had not been classified by the proper authority as 'essentially intermittent' and in this view of the matter they were entitled to overtime for work done in excess of 54 hours per week.3. The petitioners before me who were the respondents before the Labour Court asserted that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into that question for the reasons that the workmen being cabinmen had been ...
India Automotive Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC77
1. What is directly at issue in this case is a stay application involving an amount of Rs. 22,123.59. However, there has incidentally been raised an interesting and important question regarding the effect of Section 35E(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.2. In this case, the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur" and adjudicated a case relating to the classification of five items of "bolts and nuts" manufactured by the applicants, and also related charges alleging violation of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. In his order dated 31.3.84, the Deputy Collector held that four of the items were correctly classifiable under Item 68 C.E.T. as claimed by the applicants, and the remaining item, namely, "stand stud", under T.I.52, as contended by the Department. However, he held the demand for duty in respect even of this item to be time-barred. He also absolved the applicants of the allegations levelled against them in the show-cause not ice.3. The Collector of Cent...
Ess Ess Kay Eng. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC168
1. The appellants, M/s. Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd., are manufacturers, amongst other things, of electric lamp holders. During the period 18-6-77 to 6-10-77, they cleared such lamp holders on payment of Central Excise duty at 2% under TI 68 CET. Later on a notice dated 27-12-78 was issued to them to show cause why differential duty should not be demanded from them as the said lamp holders were classifiable under TI 61 CET. After they had replied, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jallandhar under order dated 20-5-80 dropped the demand on the basis that the same was barred by time. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh issued notice for review of the said order under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. After receipt of the reply the Collector by order dated 6-12-80 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and vacated the same and confirmed the demand raised earlier. It is against the said order that the appellants preferred a revision petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »