Delhi Court July 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. Sahni Saree Emporium
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC295Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 771-CH/83 dated 24.9.83 (30.9.83), passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi setting aside the order-in-original No. 7/Cus/83 dt. 5.4.83, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jullundur in C. No.VIII (10)/l/83/AO/3316-21.2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that as a result of the search of the business premises of the appellant on 6.1.83 textile fabrics in 38 pieces (124 metres) of foreign origin valued at Rs. 4,825/- were recovered and the same were seized under the provisions of Import (Control) Order No. 17 of 1955 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act. As a follow up action, show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why the seized textile fabrics be not confiscated and also why penalty be not imposed upon them. After the usual enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority confiscated the seized textile fabrics with an option ...
Puran Mal Bansal Vs. Rajdhani Oils and Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR60(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT278
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) We are concerned in this appeal with an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act staying the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant. The suit in question was for the recovery of Rs l,28,750.00 based on a claim that the forward contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 should have been settled at Rs. 106.00 per 40 Kgs instead of Rs. 96.00 per 40 Kgs. The other parties in the suit are the Association, Rajdhau Oils & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd., defendant No. 1 and defendants 3 to 7 are the Directors of this Association/Exchange. According to the claim in the suit, the contract was entered into in April, 1984 and the due date was 31st May, 1984. On that date, the goods bad to be supplied to the purchaser or the rate (if settlement was to be determined by the Association through its Directors according to the difference in rates. According to the claim of (be plaintiff, the market rate prevailing at other places was Rs. 110.00 per 40 per ...
Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. Prem Lata and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT305
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The principal ground on which the order of the Rent Controller is challenged is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act and particularly section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25(b), the Rent Controller cannot order eviction from the part of the tenanted premises. In other words, partial eviction is not permissible under the Delhi Rent Control Act.(2) The eviction petition was filed by one Ram Chander as the owner of the premises. He died during the pendency of the proceedings and the respondents in the appeal are the legal heirs. It is an admitted fact that originally the petitioner was the tenant of Ram Chander and Ram Pratap, who were the joint owners of the property. Although the petitioner had originally submitted that Ram Chander and Ram Pratap continue to be the joint landlords and Ram Chander cannot alone file the eviction petition, the petitioner admitted in bids cross-examination that there was a partition between the two joint owners and he starte...
Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi74; 30(1986)DLT307a; 1986(11)DRJ269
ORDER of detention was passed on 6th September, 1985 by the Central Government in regard to the petitioner Balbir Singh son of Late Shri Mehar Singh resident of 31/6 Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, winder Section 3(1) of the Coniervation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974 (as amended) inasmuch as the Central Government was satisfied with respect to the petitioner that the passing of this detention order was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.(2) According to the grounds of detention information was received by the Headquarters Office of the Enforcement Directorate that one Niranjan Singh who has a house at 31/6, Pusa Road, New Delhi and having telephone No. 586734 was indulging in smuggling of currency. This information was forwarded to the Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate on 14th December, 1983 on the basis of which the aforesaid premises of N...
Tulsidas Khimji Private Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC135
1. This appeal, which was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government, is directed against the order-in-appeal cited above.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Tulsidar Khimji Pvt.Ltd., clearing agents filed a Bill of Entry on behalf of the importers M/s Veljan Hydrair Private Limited for clearance of a consignment of "Electrical Machinery (Rectifier and Parts)". The description of the goods was amplified in the Bill of Entry as "Hard Anodizing Plant Capable of Anodizing 0.05 MM Thickness and Hardness of Rochwell 70C, Control cabinet, tank, rectifier and air pump - Refrigeration Unit No.1.5 H.P." The goods were assessed to basic customs duty under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) of C.T.A. 1975 and countervailing duty at the rate of 75% ad valorem under Item 29A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants disputed the levy of countervailing duty and claimed refund of c.v.duty on the ground that no such duty was leviable on the goods imported. The claim...
Tulsidas Khimji Pvt. Ltd. a/C Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)LC235Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal, which was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government, is directed against the order-in-appeal cited above.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Tulsidas Khimji Pvt.Ltd., clearing agents filed a Bill of Entry on behalf of the importers M/s Veljan Hydrair Private Limited for clearance of a consignment of "Electrical Machinery (Rectifier and Parts)". The description of the goods was amplified in the Bill of Entry as "Hard Anodizing Plant Capable of Anodizing 0.05 MM Thickness and Hardness of Rochwell 70C, Control cabinet, tank, rectifier and air pump Refrigeration Unit No.1.5 H.P." The goods were assessed to basic customs duty under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) of C.T.A. 1975 and countervailing duty at the rate of 75% ad valorem under Item 29-A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants disputed the levy of countervailing duty and claimed refund of c.v. duty on the ground that no such duty was leviable on the goods imported. The claim...
S.S. Chawla and Company Vs. Globe Motors Ltd.(In Liquidation) and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas815(Delhi)
T.P.S. Chawla, J.1. This application raises a nice question of law. It has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. On December 22, 1975, Globe Motors Limited ('the company') obtained the lease of a hall situated at 21/4, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Haryana. The landlord was S S Chawla and Company, of which Mr S S Chawla says he is the sole proprietor. The rent agreed was Rs.675 a month. It is common ground that the hall was used as a godown for keeping goods pledged by the company to the New Bank of India, 'A' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Although the rent was to be paid by the company, the godown was kept under the 'lock and key' of the bank. There appears to be no dispute that the rent was paid till October 21, 1976, but not thereafter. 3. On April 15, 1977, I made an order that Globe Motors Ltd. be wound up. In pursuance of that order, the official liquidator took charge of all the property and effects of the company. However, so far as the godown was concerned, he did nothin...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Fertilizer
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC153
1. The question for decision in these appeals by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna - originally a notice under Section 36(2) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (as it stood at the material time) issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance proposing to review Order-in-Appeal Nos. 227 & 228/BR/81 dated 31.8.81, is the correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta granting respondents' applications dated 1.11.78 and 8.5.79 for refund in terms of relief in excise duty as an incentive to higher production granted under Notification 198/76 dated 16.5.76.2. Notification No. 198/76 dated 16.5.76 granted 25% relief in central excise duty as an incentive to higher production subject to fulfilment of conditions stipulated therein. Barauni Unit of the respondent was earlier a constituent unit of Fertilizer Corporation of India upto 31.3.78 but on reorganization of Fertilizer Corporation of India, the Unit became a constituent of the new...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Paris Jewellers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC289Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.29/CH/Gold/85 dated 4.12.1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Customs, New Delhi, setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 1/GOLD/83 dated 10.2.1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Brief facts of the case so far relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that as a result of search of the business premises of the appellants on 16.9.1982 four pieces weighing 134.550 gms. (new gold ornaments) were found in excess against the balance of new gold ornaments recorded in the stock register of the appellants. As a follow-up action, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants asking them to show cause as to why the seized gold ornaments be not confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and why personal penalty be not imposed upon them under Section 74 ibid. In reply, the appellants, inter alia, submitted that the said gold ornaments which were found in excess...
Chennai Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT303TriDel
(1) their ex-factory sale prices should form the basis for determination of assessable value of their products, or (2) alternatively, all elements of cost which come under the category of "actual transportation charges" should be deducted from destination sale prices.2. On hearing both sides, we observe that by his order dated 2-3-1976, the Appellate Collector rejected the prayer at (1) above and ordered inclusion of handling and delivery charges in the assessable value. The appellants did not appeal (by way of filing a revision application to the Central Government) against this part of the Appellate Collector's order and so it became final. We hold, therefore, that they are not entitled to revive a concluded issue before us now.3. So far as their prayer at (2) is concerned, the Appellate Collector allowed deduction of "actual transport charges made by them from the place of removal to the various destinations and also bringing back empty crates of bottles to the factory." It is the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »