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.
The Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC416Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, relates to a question as to how the benefit under Notification No. 146 of 1974-CE dated 12.10.1974 is to be granted to the respondents, M/s. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., with reference to their excess production in terms of the said Notification. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur, held that the percentages mentioned in the Notification will have to be worked out with reference to the average production depending upon the percentage of excess over the average production. On appeal by the respondents, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, set aside the order mentioning that the order of the Assistant Collector was incorrect in terms of the several High Courts as well as the Tribunal decisions mentioned by him in his judgement. It is against that order the present appeal has been preferred.2. We have heard Sri. V. Ohri, for the department, and Shri D.N. Kohli, Consultant, for the respondents....
Bakelite Hylam Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC59Tri(Delhi)
1. The material in dispute in all these appeals is an article that the department calls a steel plate but which the importers call a mould.The department holds that these steel sheets would be assessable under Chapter 73 as plates of iron or steel, hot-rolled, or cold-rolled, whereas the assessees argued that Chapter 84 is the correct heading for it, because this is a mould and is a part of machinery. The goods that were imported were described variously by the different importers as stainless steel sheets or as flat moulds. At other times, they were described in invoices as stainless steel press plates; they have also been described simply as press plates. However, there is no need to record all the different names which these articles have been given, because one fact is uncontradicted and this is that the goods are flat rectangular pieces of stainless steel whose technical description can be given thus: 2.5 mm thickness, 3110 x 1270 mm length and width, made of martensitic steel, h...
Sarveshwari Gases (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC299Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants cleared compressed oxygen gas. The gas was packed in cylinders belonging to the customers. The lower authorities have held that cost of the cylinder is includible in the assessable value of gas for the purposes of assessment of central excise duty and have confirmed the demand for differential central excise duty on that basis. The appellants are contesting the demand. According to them, they sold only the gas and have, consequently, charged nothing by way of price for the cylinder. The appellants relied on the earlier ruling of the Government of India reported at 1982 E.L.T. 472 (G.O.I., F.B.) and the recently reported Bombay High Court judgment at 1986 (23) E.L.T. 394 (Bom.), Govind Pay Oxygen Ltd. v. Assistant Collector Central Excise, Panaji and Ors.2. The learned representative of the department stated that though the facts and issues involved in the appellants' case are identical with those in the Government of India ruling and the Bombay High Court judgment re...
Rajasthan Worsted Spinning Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: (1988)LC605Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed a refund claim on 1-12-78, some 20 months after the payment of duty. The Assistant Collector rejected it on merits as well as on the ground of time bar (of 6 months) under the erstwhile Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants received the Assistant Collector's order on 29-3-80. Under the then Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the appellants could file an appeal to the Appellate Collector within three months. The appellants, however, filed the appeal late -on 25-9-80. The Appellate Collector rejected it as being out of time. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, is now before us as the subject appeal.2. During the hearing before us, the appellants pressed for only one point : that their subject application to the Central Government was for revision of the Assistant Collector's order and not for revision of the Appellate Collecto...
Andhra Pradesh Lightings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC389Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India, which on transfer, is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants are manufacturers of electric bulbs. Under Notification No. 178/77-C.E., dated 18.6.1977, the manufacturers of finished goods are entitled to avail set-off of the duty paid on the components and inputs falling under T.I. No. 68 and utilised in the manufacture of the finished goods. The appellants were under the impression that the permission of the Department was necessary for availing the benefit of the set-off. They submitted an application on 5.3.1979 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Anantapur requesting for such a permission. Since there was no reply, a reminder was sent on 11.5.1979. The Superintendent gave written permission to avail of set-off duty with effect from 17.5.1979. The Superintendent also directed the appellant to file a statement showing the quantity of the duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of the bulbs as per...
Gokal Chand Jagat Ram Kapoor and Sons and ors. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT130; 1986RLR529
D.K. Kapur, C.J.(1) The Bank of Maharashtra, respondent No. I in this appeal had filed a suit for the recovery of loans granted to defendants 1 to 9 in various accounts, these defendants are now the appellants in this case. The 10th defendant was the drawee of certain bills accepted by that defendant. which were subsequently dishonoured. On 16th January, 1985, the defendants were absent and the time granted to file the written statement had expired without any written statement being filed by any of the defendants. The learned Single Judge pronounced judgment against the defendants with costs and passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,46,870.68. The liability of the 10th defendant was held to be Rs. 1,71,260.00 with proportionate costs, and interest at the rate of 18 per cent pe r annum from the date of institution of the Suit till realisation. There was an application listed before the Court on that date, being 1.A. No. 63/85, moved by some of the defendants, which was dismissed in defaul...
Yashwant Kumar Sidhwani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT104
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) Yashwant Kumar Sidhwani. resident of Flat No. 1 'Ankur' Mid Chowki' Marwa Road, Sai Baba Park, Maland. Bombay, has been detained by virtue of an order dated 26th July, 1985 passed by the Administrater of the Union Territory of Delhi under section 3 read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him for abetting the smuggling of gold into India. The detention and continued detention has been challenged by the petitioner on diverse grounds in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (2) According to the grounds of detention on 23rd July, 1984 one Mohan Lal son of Shri Bhola Ram of Kanpore arrived from Dubai by Air India flight No. AI-860. After collecting the baggage he opted for green channel. He was intercepted by the Superintendent, Air Customs, who during the course of inquiry found his movements suspicious and thereforee, diverted his baggage for detail...
Collector of Customs Vs. Goodyear India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC38
1. The present proceedings came to be initiated by the Central Government by the issue on 4-2-81 of a notice under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the "Customs Act") to M/s.Goodyear India Limited (hereinafter called "Goodyear") calling upon them to show cause why order-in-appeal No. S.49/1049/79-R dated 1-12-79 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay should not be set aside and why the Assistant Collector's order No. S/6-C-3342/78-R dated 17-5-79 should not be restored. The proceedings were pending on the eve of the setting up of this Tribunal and were transferred to it under Section 131 B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2.0 To begin the story at the beginning, Goodyear imported at the Bombay Port a consignment of what was described in the covering invoice 3641 dated 6-2-78 as "Bulked Nylon Fabric - Your code No. E 02 NN".They filed a bill of entry for clearance of the goods describin...
Rank India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi399; ILR1990Delhi401
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This is an application moved by the plaintiff under Order Vi Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for effecting additional amendments in the plaint. The proposed amendments inter alias include a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,04,500 by way of damages. This application has been resisted by the defendants. (2) The perusal of the plaint shows that even though in the prayer clause only two relief one for permanent injunction and the other for mandatory injunction in respect the building in question were prayed for, it was specifically asserted in para No. 15 of the plaint that the defendants had caused serious damages to the said building for which reason they were liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 1,04,500 to the plaintiff. Not only that the plaintiff further in para No. 22 of the plaint stated valuation for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction not only for the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunctions but also in respect of the recovery of ...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Devid Richard Hall
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT435
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) In this application under Section 439(2) read with serration has prayed turn the cancellation of the bail granted to Devid Richard Hall in case Fir No. 180 dated 23-12-1985. Devid Richard Hall was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi vide order dated 6th February 1986 on his executing personal bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. 12,000.00 in a case registered against him under Section 21123 of N.D.P.S. Act 1985. Since the respondent failed to furnish surety bond the Additional Sessions Judge permitted the respondent to deposit the amount of surety in cash. The respondent deposited the cash on the same day thus he was released. (2) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Delhi Administration that after his release, Devid Richard Hall on 11th February 1986 met the international criminal Charles Shobraj in Tihar Jail Along with four persons, two of them being advocates. He stayed in a guest house at Anand Niketan between t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »