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.
Viresh Kumar and Bros. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC61
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (b) it was issued on 1-11-1985, and received by the applicant on or after 4-11-1985; (c) the instant appeal was put in a course of transmission by registered post on 4-2-1986 as evidenced by the postal receipt filed by the applicant; and 3. From the dates recited supra, the last date for it's receipt was 4-2-1986 on which day it was actually posted. If at all there was any delay, it was prayed that it may be condoned.4. In opposition, our attention was drawn to the decisions in 1983 ELT 1296 (S.C.) [F.N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta] and 1986 (24) ELT 128 [Jhaboolal Kesara Rolling Mills, Mirzapur v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi] and it was contended that, on the basis of their ratio, the appeal was clearly filed beyond the period of limitation, which in the circumstances, expired on 4-2-1986.5. From the facts recited in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the firs...
Lemuir Air Express Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC89Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are IATA approved Air Cargo Agents. It is alleged that on 19.10.84 the appellants presented export goods along with Shipping Bill No. 85986 dated 9.10.84 and other documents for export to Sweden. On examination of the packages the Customs Officer found that their contents did not agree with the description given in the Shipping Bills. After usual enquiry the goods were confiscated. However, an option to redeem the same for home consumption on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of confiscation was given to the exporter M/s.East West Linkers (P) Ltd., Delhi. Personal penalty of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed on the said exporter. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the appellants for their acts of omission and commission or abetment of doing or omission of such act which have rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, ibid.2. Shri J.P. Tanaon, learned consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended b...
Om Parkash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT311; 1986(11)DRJ155
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) Petitioner Om Parkash seeks bail in the case Fir No. 64/86 of P. S.KalyanPuri under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code Theallegationi of the prosecution in this case are that Mils Savita sister of Anil deceased had illicit sexual relations with the assailant Urnesh. The deceased accompanied by other members of his family went to the house of the petitioner in order to catch hold of Umesh. On reaching there at the house of the petitioner they wanted to catch hold of Umesh. The petitioner and his wife caught hold of the deceased and told Umesh to teach a lesson to the deceased and his family members who wanted to catch hold of him whereupon Umesh immediately went inside the room of his house and brought out a knife and inflicted a blow with the same under the left side arm-pit of the deceased instantaneously. This finds mention in the Fir lodged by Kedar Singh father of the deceased. After saying all this and after some other sentences he says that the deceased was ...
Fargo Mantle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC19
1. The appellants M/s Fargo Mantle Products (Private) Limited are manufacturers of gas mantles for use in petromax lanterns. These gas mantles are classifiable under tariff item 68 CET. The appellants claimed exemption from payment of duty in respect of such products under notification No. 179/77-CE dated 18.6.1977. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay Division P by order dated 4.1.1979. He held thereunder that the appellants are using electric power while warping the nylon yarn beam and also while knitting nylon hose in knitting machine and further that they are using power for drying the nylon hose and again in pressing the mantle with electric irons. The appellants filed an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay under Order dated 27.10.1980 Thereunder he held that while use of power in the manufacture of hoses would not, for that reason, deny entitlement to exemption under notification No. 179/77, since such ho...
Jayavantmal Duggar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC407Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dis-satisfied with the Order- in- Original No. dated 13-1-84, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and also ordering that the seized gold ornaments shall be released to the appellant only on payment of personal penalty so adjudged, the appellant has filed the captioned appeal.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-cum-residential premises of the appellant on 12-6-82 gold ornaments weighing 6,001.000 gms. gross (2911.750 gms. net) valued at Rs. 3,57,492/- were recovered and seized by the Headquarters (Preventive) Customs. On 13-6-82 also, while conducting the search of the remaining portion of the house which could not be searched on 12-,6-82 the Preventive Party recovered the following gold ornaments from the possession of the members of the family of the appellant :------------------...
Television Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC34
1. A price list was submitted by M/s. Television Factory, Chambaghat, Solan, to the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise Division, Section 17A, Chandigarh, for their television receiver model HW 303 under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, in August, 1976 and the list was approved provisionally by same month by the Asistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. It appears, however, that the television sets manufactured by M/s. Television Factory were supplied to M/s. Electronic Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad, who sold the sets through their own. sales outlets. The Assistant Collector, therefore, began enquiries into the sales before final approval of the list.2. It came to light during the enquiries that ECIL, Hyderabad sold the television receiver sets with an extra charge of Rs. 190/- per set as service/warranty charges and this was compulsorily recovered from all buyers. The Assistant Collector odecided that the extra charge of Rs. 190/- per televi...
Wellpoint Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC13
1. This appeal relates to the classification of what are variously described as "dewatering systertis", "dewatering equipment" etc. The appellants, Wellpoint Systems (P) Ltd. supply the equipment. It is stated to have uses for dewatering of foundations for bridges, dams, barrages, work sites etc. It appears that the equipment consists of a centrifugal pump, a prime 'mover and a number of accessories such as suction headers, screen tubes, swing joints, suction hoses, valves, floats, gaskets etc.2. Following a visit to the factory of the appellants, a show-cause notice was issued to them by the Delhi Central Excise authorities. In the show-cause notice it was alleged that they had manufactured jetting sets and accessories of dewatering sets of value of Rs. 1,13,750, involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,687.50 without applying for or obtaining a Central Excise licence. It was further alleged that they had manufactured and cleared "excisable goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68" value...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rattan Chand Sood and Other
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Del)40; [1987]166ITR497(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. A piece of land, bearing No. 126, Raja Garden, New Delhi, was sold by Rattan Chand Sood to Om Prakash under a sale deed dated February 28, 1973, for a consideration, stated in the sale deed, to be Rs. 19,992. Om Prakash in turn sold the property to Piara Singh by a sale deed dated July 20, 1973, for Rs. 47,000. Piara Singh, in his turn put up a construction on the plot and transferred the plot and the building to Mool Chand Nayyar and Bimla Devi under two sale deeds dated April 30, 1975, for a consideration of Rs. 48,000 each. 2. In respect of the first of the above sales, viz, the one dated February 28, 1973, a notice under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Official Gazette on July 28, 1973. Subsequently, notices were also served on the transferee (namely, Om Prakash) as well as tenant who was stated to be in possession of the property, one Shri Kharbanda. In the course of these proceedings, the ...
Manohar Lal Vs. NaraIn Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi226; 30(1986)DLT454; 1987RLR16
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated October 4, 1982. (2) By lease deed dated July 24, 1953 the Delhi Improvement Trust, predecessor-in-interest of the Delhi Development Authority, leased out a plot of land No. 12, Block No. B Western Extension Area, New Delhi to Rattan Lal. He constructed a building thereon and let out a portion, consisting of one room and a covered verandah in front thereof, to Narain Dass (respondent-tenant) on a monthly rent of Rs. 63.00 . Rattan Lal later sold this property to Manohar Lal (appellant/landlord) by a sale deed dated November 26, 1961. The respondent attorney to him as a tenant. (3) Under the terms of the lease deed granted by the D.DA., the lessee was not entitled to use the said land and building that may be erected thereon for any other purpose than for the purpose of a residential house, without the consent in ...
Sarabhai Chemical Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT441TriDel
1. In this appeal, which was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government, the appellants have claimed re-assessment of the goods, which were cleared ex-bond, at the rate of duty prevailing on the date on which the goods entered into the territorial waters of India as against the assessment made at the rate prevailing on the date of removal from the warehouse.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants imported a consignment consisting of 25 packages of dehumidification plant valued at Rs. 11,11,373/-. A bill of entry for clearance of the goods for home consumption was filed on 27-11-1975. As there were some objections relating to classification of the goods and I.T.C. licence, the appellants requested the Assistant Collector of Customs on 27-12-1975, for permission to warehouse the goods. An into-bond bill of entry was filed on 1-1-1976 and the goods were warehoused on 23-1-1976. The appellants filed appeal before the Central Board of Excis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »