Delhi Court September 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.
General Electric Company of India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC200
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India, which on transfer to the Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture Industrial Propeller Fans under Licence issued to them by the Ministry of Industries. The Licence specified that the appellants manufactured industrial propeller fans. Central excise duty on industrial fans was introduced from the mid-night of 28/29.5.71. According to the appellants the Superintendent of Central Excise, Calcutta instead of charging duty at the rate of 1296 ad-valorem applicable under Tariff Item 33(2) demanded duty July at the enhanced rate of 15% ad-valorem under T.I, 33(3). i.e., electric fans not otherwise specified. The appellants wrote to the Assistant Collector to give directions to the concerned Superin-tendent for the assessment of the product under T.I. 33(2). The appellants represented that they were submitting price-list, form I, gate Passes etc. under protest. The assistant Collector did not ...
Sun Export Corporation and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC278
1. This is an appeal against order-in-appeal No. W08/82 dated 7.8.1982.The appeal in respect of six appeal Nos. CD/SB/1670/86-C to L675/86-C were filed beyond time. After hearing the two sides on the request for condonation of delay made by the appellant's counsel, the Bench condoned the delay, and proceeded with the hearing of the appeals. One party by name M/s. Intercraft Pvt. Limited is said not to have filed any appeal after Tribunal's order No. 117/86 dated 28.7.1986. Mr.Krishnamurthy states that his arguments would be in respect only of the six appeals.2. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Krishnamurthy began his address by saying that there is nothing in the law to support assessment under item 15A(1)(ii) of the central excise tariff. The only correct item for assessment is sub-item 2 as "Articles of Plastic" because polyinyl alcohol is a modification of polyvinyl acetate and has been turned into an article i.e. a powder, which is used in textile industries, in sizing y...
B.S. Tolani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT195
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this writ petition the petitioner questions the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land which was purchased by him at a public auction held in pursuance of powers conferred upon the Regional Settlement Commissioner under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act No. 44 of 1954). The public auction at which the petitioner purchased the land, was held on 7th June, 1960, and he was the highest bidder in the same of Rs. 77,070. The petitioner had purchased the land, as it is evident from the sale certificate as freehold land. The property which was purchased is known as Garden Aliwala, and the same is located in the revenue estate of Mehrauli The khasra numbers of the land which was acquired are mentioned in the sale certificate as 1303(0-13), 1304(0-18), 1305(0-10), 1306(1-0), 1307(0-18), 1309(0-18), 1310(1-11), 1311(1-10), 1312(1-10), 131?(0-17), 1314(0-17), 1315(4-16), 1310(4-5), 1317(2-6), 1326(4-2), 1331(1-0), 1...
Banarsi Dass Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT431; 1987(12)DRJ58
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed by Banarsi Dass, son of Shri Bhag Mal, asserting that he is the sole owner of property No. 1/13-B, Hospital Road, Jangpura, New Delhi, which he acquired as a result of adjustment of his claims. It is asserted in the writ. petition that by purporting to review a revisional order by impugned order dated 31st January 1984, the Settlement Commissioner has gone wrong in re-opening matters. which had been closed in the year 1958. (2) The petitioner asserts that he along with his father migrated to India from District Gujrat, now in Pakistan, where he lived along with his. father and brothers in the year 1947. The father of the petitioner left landed property and house property in village Kala Shadian, Tehsil Phalia, and village. Chak Lakhia, Tebsil Phalia. It is asserted by the petitioner that the entire property was partitioned in Pakistan and the house situated in village Kala Shadian fell to the share of the petitioner, while the ho...
India Tourism Development Corporation Vs. R.S. Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT475
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Mr. S.N.Bhandari on behalf of the petitioner India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd , states that Akbar Hotel was closed w.e.f. 1-4-1986. He further asserts that this closure was a bona fide and a genuine one. He refers to the provisions of section 2(c)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under : '2(C)(C)-'CLOSURE'means the permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof.' (2) It is contended by Mr. Bhandari that this provision as amended w.e.f. 21-8-1984, permits permanent closing down of a part of place of employment. He further asserts that the Akbar Hotel was a place of employment which was an independent unit, inasmuch as it did not have any functional or financial integrality with other hotels being run by the petitioner. (3) He says that the closure being a genuine closure, reinstatement cannot be ordered in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Workmen of the Indian Leaf Tobacoo Development Co. Ltd. v. Management of I...
Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC120Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, which was originally filed before the Government of India as a revision application, the appellants have prayed that the impugned order dated 3-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay may be set aside and the Assistant Collector of Customs may be directed to register the contract of the appellants under the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 so that the refund of Customs duty already paid in excess can be obtained.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants made an application for registration of their contract No.15617/PO-411/Spec-973/ DD-166 S-IV dated 25-6-1981 entered into with M/s. Cometto Industraile, Italy through M/s. Salgaocar Engineers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi for Import of one 200 M/Ton Self-propelled vehicle model Cometto MT-100 etc. They sought clearance of the goods against import licence No. 20394 38 dated 18-6-1981, duly endorsed with "Project Imports" under Heading No. 84.66 of C.T.A., 1975. T...
Ram Nath Chitkara Vs. Dewan Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT24; 1986(11)DRJ331
Sultan Singh, J.(1) On 10-2-1984 the plaintiff filed a suit for cancelling agreement of lease dated 9-6-1983 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the said agreement in any legal proceedings. The plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint. By the amended plaint dated 6-11-1984 the plaintiff prayed for a decree for declaration that the agreement of lease dated 9-6-1983 having been brought about by fraud of the defendant was void and unenforceable and did not create relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties The defendant in the written statement raised various objections One of the objections was that the (r)uit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. By judgment dated 1-8-1985 the trial court held that the suit was barred and dismissed the suit.(2) The plaintiff filed an appeal and the Senior Sub-Judge, held that the finding of the trial court that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not co...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC293
1. This reference to a five-Member Bench was occasioned by conflict between two decisions of the Tribunal in -Collector of Customs v. Bharat Heavy Electri-cals b) Order No. 843/84-6 in Appeal No. 1572/81 [Collector of Customs v. Tata Merlin and Gerin Ltd.] dated 15-11-1984.2. The question for consideration in both the aforesaid decisions was if "chamber and conduit insulators" used as parts of air blast circuit breakers in the voltage of 130 K.V., when imported, have to be classified under sub-heading (1) or (7), or both falling under (3) of the Item No. 85.18/27 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter the Schedule).3. The aforesaid question arises in the instant appeal as well. On an application of refund, the Assistant Collector held that the goods were classifiable under item 85.18/27(1). On an appeal, this order was confirmed. Hence the instant appeal. In an earlier hearing, while the Appellant cited the Tribunal's decision in the Tata-Merlin case, the R...
Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)(28)ELT539TriDel
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants had a Phosphoric .Acid plant at Ambarnath. They had also a factory at Roha for producing Sulphuric Acid of commercial grade and Oleum (20 per cent), which were required for captive consumption in their Ambarnath plant for manufacture of phosphoric acid. They submitted pricelists for sulphuric acid on 23.7.79, 29.10.79 and 21.2.80 declaring the prices at cost of production plus 20% thereof based on the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. Similarly, they also submitted price lists for Oleum 20% on 24.7.79 and 21.2.80 declaring the price at cost plus 20% on the basis of Chartered Accountant's certificate. These price lists were approved by the Assistant Collector and the appellants paid duty on the basis of those prices. In the mean time, the appellants sent a letter dated 2.5.79 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan Division stating that in order to cut down transport charges for transporting sulphuric acid ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC154
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Indian Rayon Corporation (the respondents before us) were, during the material time, engaged in the manufacture of rayon yarn [Viscose (cellulosic) Filament Yarn]. They used to remove on payment of duty (in terms of Central Excise notification No. 53/72, dated 17-3-1972) godet waste arising in the manufacture of rayon yarn. On 14-1-1981, the respondents wrote to the Superintendent of Central Excise stating that the waste collected at the lower as well as the upper godets could not be considered as rayon waste since it did not have any stretch or twist, that the stretch or twist developed only inside the spinning pots and, hence, such waste would not fall under item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). In support of this contention, they relied on the Bombay High Court Judgment dated 30-6-1980 in Century Rayon v. Union of India and Ors. (Special Civil Application No. 2672 of 1976). The Assistant Collector, Central Excis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »