Delhi Court May 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 5 of about 68 results (0.022 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Vardhman Spinning and General
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC17
1. These three appeals have been filed by Collector of Customs, Bombay against the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. As the issue involved in the three appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants imported second hand intersecting gill boxes. The Custom House charged additional duty of customs equivalent to the Central Excise duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed for refund of duty on the ground that countervailing duty was not chargeable on the second hand machines imported by them.The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund department), Bombay. The Assistant Collector, while rejecting the refund claims, held that Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not make any distinction, whether the goods imported were new and old.Appeals filed by the respondents against the orders of the Assistant Collector were allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi and Sons. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT488TriDel
1. The questions for decision in this batch of 18 appeals are classification for the purpose of basic customs duty (1) Toyobo Printing Plates (2) Graphic Art Films and (3) R.C. Paper imported vide Bill of Entries D-442 dated 10-1-1983, D-965 dated 18-3-1983, D-1391 dated 27-12-1982, D-142 dated 2-2-1983, D-324 dated 8-4-1983, D-358 dated 12-4-1982, D-376 dated 9-3-1982, D-498 dated 10-11-1981, D-663 dated 15-12-1981, PD-118 dated 30-7-1980, D-1386 dated 25-6-1982, D-848 dated 16-6-1982, D-863 dated 18-12-1981, AD-430 dated 10-9-1981 and D-241 dated '4-2-1982 - whether it should be under Heading 37.01/08 as assessed by the Revenue or under Heading 80.34 as claimed by the appellants and whether levy of CV duty when like goods are not produced or manufactured in India deserves to be quashed as unjust and illegal and if not, their proper classification.2. At the time of import, the imported goods were assessed to duty under Chapter 37 of CTA Heading 37.01/08 and for the purpose of additio...
Tag this Judgment!Dtc Mazdoor Congress and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi158
B.N. Kripal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, Petitioner No. 1 and four other employees of the Delhi Transport Corporation Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC'), wherein the challenge is to the validity of Regulation 9(a) & (b) of D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and the termination of Services of Petitioners 2 to 4. 2. According to the petition, at the time of termination of their services, Petitioner No. 2 was working as a Conductor since 1969. Petitioner No. 3 was working as an A.T.I. since 1970 and Petitioner No. 4 was working as a Driver since 1974. All the said petitioners were permanent employees of the DTC. Petitioner No. 5 however, was on probation. The said Petitioners 2 to 4 are members of Petitioner No. 1, which is a recognised trade union of the workers employed with the DTC. 3. It is alleged that the DTC terminated the services of a driver and a cond...
Tag this Judgment!T. Varalakshmi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT222
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 1679/84. The petitioner was admitted in the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, on the focting that she was a Scheduled Tribe candidate ; she also got financial assistance on the same score, She was informed by a Memo., dated 9th December, 1983, that her Scheduled Tribe status was disputed by the Director of Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and she was directed to produce a certificate issued by the Director of Tribal Welfare, to the effect that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. She was informed that she would not be permitted to register for Ii trimester commencing From 9th January, 1984. A caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar Charminar Hyderabad was produced and she gave an undertaking that she may be provisionally allowed to register subject to verification of the caste certificate from the Competent Authority She Slated : 'IN case it is found that j do not b...
Tag this Judgment!Satwant Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi393; 1986CriLJ1352; ILR1986Delhi168
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) When these matters were taken up for hearing. Mr. P. N. Lekhi, counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1986 raised a preliminary objection that under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code read with the rules of the High Court, a Full Bench cannot be constituted for hearing a criminal appeal or a murder reference. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure deals with murder references in Chapter Xxviii. In this Chapter, section 369 provides that in every case submitted for 'confirmation of sentence of death to the High Court, 'the confirmation of the sentence or any new sentence or order passed by the High Court, shall, when such Court consists of two or more Judges, be made, passed and signed by at least two of them'. Section 370 provides that 'where any such case is heard before a Bench of Judges and such Judges are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be decided in the manner provided by Section 392'. Section 392 appears in Chapter Xxix whi...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Patwardhan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ190
D.K. Kanpur, C.J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment in Civil Writ No. 1372 of 1984, decided on 19th February, 1985, whereby the appellant's Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ to strike down the promotion of Shri P.D. Gujarati, respondent No. 4, to the grade of Chief Surveyor of Works was dismissed.(2) In order to understand the case of the appellant, it is necessary to set out a few introductory facts. The post of Chief Surveyor of Works is a selection post which is filled by promotion. This is provided by the Military Engineer Services (Surveyor Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 1975. Promotions are made from the post of Superintending Surveyor of Works and Superintendent Technical Examiner. The persons eligible are those who have had five years service on a regular basis. The selection is by a Departmental Promotion Committee. There was only one post of Chief Surveyor of Works. However, the Government of India had decided to set u...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Mazdoor Congress (Registered) and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987LabIC1070; (1987)ILLJ61Del
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress, Petitioner No. I and four other employees of the Delhi Transport Corporation, Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC'), wherein the challenge is to the validity of Regulation 9 (a) & (b) of D. R. T. A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and the termination of services of Petitioners 2 to 4. (2) According to the petition, at the time of termination of their services, Petitioner No. 2 was working as a Conductor since 1969, Petitioner No. 3 was working as an A. T. 1. since 1970 and Petitioner No. 4 was working as a Driver since 1974. All the said petitioners were permanent employees of the DTC. Petitioner No. 5, however, was on probation. The said Petitioners 2 to 4 are members of Petitioner No. I, which is a recognised trade union of the workers employed with the DTC. (3) It is alleged that the Dtc terminated the services of a dri...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC446Tri(Delhi)
1. By Order No. 297 to 302/85-B dated 16-4-1985 the Bench directed re-working out the demand of duty against the non-applicant M/s. Indian Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd. (hereinafter called non-applicant) excluding a period of stay 26-12-1977 to 16-3-1978 with respect to show cause notice dated 8-12-1977. By the present application purporting to be under section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the applicant-Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called the Collector) prays that the period of exclusion with respect to notice period should be 26-12-1977 to 6-10-1982 and not 26-12-1977 to 16-3-1978 as earlier ordered in paras 11 and 13 of the order supra.2. The present application is made in the following circumstances. The Bench ordered exclusion of the period 26-12-1977 to 16-3-1978 relying on the modification dated 2-1-1978 in the stay order. According to this stay order the interim stay granted by the High Court was to continue till filing of counter by...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Durga Glass (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC697Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar has filed five appeals being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. 124-128/OR/85 dated the 5th August, 1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta. Simultaneously, the appellant had also filed five stay applications requesting the operation of the stay of the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta. In column No. 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal, the date of service of the order has been mentioned as the 2nd September 1985. The appellant has also filed live applications for condonation of delay and the applications for condonation of delay were received in the registry on the 31st January, 1986. The applications for condonation of delay are duly supported with a photo copy of the affidavit of Shri B.N. Kavale, Assistant Collector of Central excise, Cuttack.2. Shri B.R. Tripathi, the learned SDR has appeared on behalf of the applicants, and has pleaded that the delay in the filing of the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Anurag Dalmia Family Trust Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)18ITD373(Delhi)
1. These appeals arise from similar set of circumstances. They were, therefore, argued by the learned counsel for the assessee together and are being disposed of by this combined order, for the sake of convenience.2. The appellants are trusts, whose original assessments Under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), read with Section 21(3) of the Act were completed on 31-10-1974, on total wealth of Rs. 2,03,585 in the case of Anurag Dalmia Family Trust and Rs. 64,400 in the case of Parag Dalmia Family Trust. Subsequently these assessments were reopened by the WTO in terms of Clause (b) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 17 of the Act and reassessments were completed by the WTO on the following wealth : by invoking the provisions of Sub- section (4) of Section 21. The assessee appealed against the aforesaid orders to the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging (i) the validity of the reopening of the assessment and (2) the quantum of wealth determined.3. The Commissioner has not a...
Tag this Judgment!