Delhi Court August 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.
CochIn Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC58
1. This is a Revision Application, originally filed before the Central Government, which on transfer to this Tribunal, is being disposed of as an appeal.2. In the Revision Application, the appellants have stated that they imported Deck Machinery for their Ship-001 by steamer from Norway and those goods were cleared without payment of customs duty under Notification No. 163/6.5-Cus., and kept in their warehouse for construction of ocean-going vessel in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At the time of despatch of the equipments, some items were left behind, which were subsequently sent by the supplier through post parcel. They claimed clearance of the parcel without payment of customs duty under Notification No. 163/Cus. of 1965 on the ground that those items formed part of the main equipments. The Custom House, Cochin, turned down their request and charged duty Of Rs. 414.97 Raise on the goods. After clearance of...
Gum Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC105
1. This is an appeal against order-in-appeal No. 123/85(M) dated 10.7.85 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby the Collector 'Confirmed the Order-in-original C.No. V/68/3/5/84 VC dated 7.1.85 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras VII Division. The Assistant Collector had held that Bubble Gum was a chewing gum classifiable under item No. 1A(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (CET, for short), and confirmed certain demands for duty raised against M/s. Gum Products (P) Ltd., the appellants before us.2. The only question pressed by the appellants before us during the hearing of this appeal was whether bubble gum manufactured by the appellants was correctly classifiable under item No. 68 CET, as claimed by them, or under item No. 1A(1) as a chewing gum, as held by the lower authorities. Therefore, we are, in this order, confining ourselves to this question.3. We have heard Shri J.P. Tandon ss, Consultant, along wi...
income-tax Officer Vs. H.L. Chandok
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD516(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the revenue has brought before us an interesting issue. The issue is : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing proportionate exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on capital gains arising on sale of property bearing No. 20/48, Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi 2. We have heard both the sides and very carefully considered the rival submissions and the orders of the authorities below. In order to appreciate the rival contentions and to facilitate the determination of the issue, a careful look at the factual canvas, which is as under, is necessary.3. The assessee, Shri H.L. Chandok, is an individual. He was allotted and purchased on allotment from the Ministry of Rehabilitation property bearing No. 20/48, Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi in 1948. The property as then purchased had only asbestos sheet roofing. In 1966-67, the assessee modified the roofing and constructed first floor and barsati f...
S.P. JaIn Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi577
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner who possess a Masters Degree in Commerce from Agra University and B.Ed. from Darbhangha University appended for a post of T.G.T. in Ramjas Higher Secondary School at Hauz, Kazi, New Delhi in response to an advertisement. The Ramjas Higher Secondary School which is ran by the Ramjas Foundation is recognised and aided by Delhi Administration. The petitioner was appointed to this post after being selected by a Selection Committee in an interview on 11th October 1968. Subsequent to his appointment. the Directorate of Education took a view that the petitioner could not continue his services as a T.G.T. in the respondent's School because his B.Ed. degree from Darbhangha University was not recognised and, thereforee, the Director of Education issued a direction to respondent no. 3 to terminate his services, however, an extention was sought for by respondent no. 3 Ramjas Foundation which was granted by the Directorate of Education. While the petitioner wa...
V. Srinivasana Vs. Kishore Dev Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes262; 30(1986)DLT378; 1986RLR616
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This is a criminal revision filed by the petitioner V. Srinivasan and is directed against the order dated 8.7.1986 passed by Shri S.P. Singh Choudbary, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. (2) Vide order dated 14th February, 1986 passed by Shri Bharat Bhushan, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, process was issued against the accused Kishore Dev Mukherjee respondent No. 1 and V.K. Jain respondent No. 2 u/ss 21 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the complaint filed by Shri V. Srinivasan, Superintendent, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi. (3) Against the said order of summoning, a revision petition was filed by V.K. Jain alone which was accepted by Shri S.P. Singh Choudhary, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on the short ground that section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short Cr P.C.) necessarily mandated the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to first examine the complainant a...
Mrs. Satbir Kaur Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 1987(10)LC585(Delhi)
ORDERSunanda Bhandare, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the detention order of Shri Bhupinder Singh dated 7th January, 1986 made by Delhi Administration under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though the order of detention and grounds of detention were made on 7th January, 1986 Bhupinder Singh was detained on 23rd March, 1986 and the grounds of detention were served on him on 27th March, 1986.2. In the grounds of detention it was alleged that on 24th September, 1984 the officers of the Customs Preventive Unit, Delhi examined one Maroon colour zipper suit-case having black lining on it pertaining to Airways Bill No. 074-5218-5560 074-5218-5560 having C.W.C. location No. G-10624 in Go-down 'B' of the Central Warehousing Corporation, Gurgaon Road, New Delhi in the presence of two independent wi...
Renutrol Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT527TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal is classification for the purpose of customs of Solid Cores which are component parts of Filter Driers. While the Customs assessed it under heading 38.01/19(1) of CTA 1975 and Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of additional duty, the appellants claimed re-assessment under heading 84.15(1) and in the alternative under heading 84.18(1) of CTA 1975. They do not dispute the classification under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of additional duty.2. At the hearing of the appeal Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant for the appellants and Shri Sundar Rajan, JDR for the respondent were heard and the record perused. At the hearing Shri Sogani relied on opinion dated 13/15-7-1983 of Directorate General of Technical Development of Govt.of India and submitted that the goods would merit classification as claimed as component parts of airconditioning and refrigeration machinery.3. After examining the technical data produced with ref...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Talbros Automotive Components
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT541TriDel
1. The respondents M/s. Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. manufacture, amongst other things, industrial gaskets (non-automotive) in which mineral fibre predominates in weight. Under order dated 21-11-1980 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras-II Division classified these gaskets under T.I. 22-F (4) CET and confirmed demand for duty on that basis for the period 19-12-1979 to 18-6-1980. Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras set aside this order under his order dated 11-5-1981. The Central Government issued notice dated 3-5-1982 under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act as they were of the view that the order of the Appellate Collector was not proper, legal and correct. Under the said notice they proposed to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and pass such orders as may be deemed fit thereafter. The respondents replied supporting the order of the Appellate Collector. The proceedings initiated under the said review notice are now before us, o...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vidharbha Pharmaceutical (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC307
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur has filed this application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter Act) and prayed that the appeal filed by M/s. Vidharba Pharmaceutical (P) Limited (hereinafter appellant) be rejected for non-compliance with the stay order No. C-41/85 dated 14-3-1985. By this stay order pre-deposit of central excise duty as a condition for the appeal was dispensed with on condition that the appellant deposit in cash 50% of the duty demanded with the concerned Collector and furnish to his satisfaction bank guarantee for the balance amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. On compliance with this order, the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing in its turn.2. Notice of this application was issued to the appellant non-applicant M/s. Vidharba Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd. In response to the notice, Shri Gopal Prasad, learned consultant has appeared for the appellant. Sri Gopal Prasad stated that the appe...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vidharba Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT332TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur has filed this application under Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter 'Act') and prayed that the appeal filed by M/s. Vidharba Pharmaceutical (P) Limited (hereinafter/ appellant) be rejected for non-compliance with the Stay order No. C-41/85 dated H.3.85. By this Stay order pre-deposit of Central Excise duty as a condition for the appeal was dispensed with on condition that the appellant deposit in cash 50% of the duty demanded with the concerned Collector and furnish to his satisfaction bank guarantee for the balance amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. On compliance with this order, the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing in its turn.2. Notice of this application was issued to the appellant non-applicant M/s. Vidharba Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd. In response to the notice, Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Consultant has appeared for the appellant. Shri Gopal Prasad stated that the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »