Delhi Court January 1987 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.
Sundaram Clayton Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT119TriDel
1. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Madras had filed a revision application to the Additional Secretary, Government of India being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. C3/2690/79, dated 4-2-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. The said revision application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Madras had imported Connecting Rods, a component part of Compressors vide Bill of Entry No. D-975, dated 18th June, 1979. The Assistant Collector had assessed the same under Heading 87.04/06 (1). The appellants had filed a refund claim on the ground that the same are to be assessed under Heading 84.11 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs. The learned Appellate Collector of Customs had reje...
Etikoppaka Co-operative Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(28)ELT553TriDel
1. The Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural & Industrial Society ltd., made their claim for the sugar incentive rebate under notification No.108/78-CE, dated 28-4-78 in respect of their production of sugar during the period 1-5-78 to 15-8-78. The claim was made under latter dated 31-8-78 but was returned by the Super intendent on 28-2-79 and later re-submitted, the date of final re-submission, according to the order under appeal, being 21-1-1981, the claim was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur under order dated 8-2-82 on the basis that since notification No. 36/76-CE, dated 25-2-76 applied in the case of the appellants they were not entitled to the benefit claimed under notification no. 108/78. It is the revision petition preferred against the said order to the Central Government that, on transfer, is the present deemed appeal before us.2. We have heared Shri G. Prabhakar Sastry, Advocate for the appellants Shri K.C. Sachar for the Department.3. As earlier noted,...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kashmir Vanaspati
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC221
1. The issue involved in the two appeals relates to the eligibility of the respondents for benefit under notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979. When the appeals came up before Special Bench-C for hearing, Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, appearing for the Department, raised an objection that the appeals will have to be heard by the concerned Regional Bench and not by a Special Bench. The Bench took note of the fact (as mentioned in its order dated 19-8-1986) that appeals involving the question of eligibility for benefit under notification No.201/79-CE have been dealt with by Regional Benches as well as by Special Benches details of such appeals being given in the order dated 19-8-1986. On a request of the said Bench the President has directed that this Bench of five Members may go into the question regarding jurisdiction as a-preliminary issue and that if this Bench holds that the appeals fall within the jurisdiction of a Special Bench it may proceed further and hear the appeals on meri...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Ashwani Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR265(Delhi)
1. In these applications by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the question on which reference is sought is : 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessed is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of flat No. 1D, Sagar Apartments, especially in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sushil Ansal v. CIT : [1986]160ITR308(Delhi) ?' 2. We are of the opinion that this is a question of law particularly in view of the decision of this court in Sushil Ansal v. CIT : [1986]160ITR308(Delhi) , and the observations of the Supreme Court in (Late) Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT : [1986]162ITR888(SC) , and the Tribunal is directed to make a consolidated statement of case for both the assessment years and refer this question for the decision of this court. The petitions are disposed of. No costs. ...
Gurmohan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT248; [1987(54)FLR563]
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why the proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated for their willful failure to implement the judgment and orders in Civil Writ Petition No. 346 of 1972. The respondents have filed the affidavit justifying the action and raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition itself. In order to determine the controversy let us first go to the salient features. (2) Gurmohan Singh is petitioner and is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Company Commander, 31st Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Calcutta. He was not satisfied with the list of seniority. Now- a-days be is posted in Amritsar (Punjab). He was not satisfied with the arbitrary action of the respondents denying him the seniority on the basis of his confirmation and due promotion in terms of departmental rules. He preferred to file C.W.P. No. 1053 of 1970 w...
T.N. Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT350; 1987(12)DRJ268
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) By an order dated 29th June, 1985 passed by the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 the petitioner came to be detained on 14th March, 1986. The detention was directed with a view to prevent him from indulging in any activity prejudicial to the augmentation of the foreign -exchange. The incident on which the detention is based is dated 10/5/1985. Earlier the petitioner was granted bail by court of law on 27/6/1985. (2) There is no need for me to detail broad facts of the incident that ultimately culminated the detention of the detenu. Mr. Herjinder Singh arguing the petition for the petitioner has mainly raised three contentions and the fate of the petition depends upon the out-come of the contentions raised. The first contention of Mr. Herjinder Singh is that there has been a considerable delay in consideration of his representation. This ground he has specifically r...
Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT353TriDel
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an appeal. The main contention of the appellants is that during the period 6-11-1979 to 23-3-1980 they were manufacturing goods falling under Item 68 purely as job workers within the meaning of Notification No. 119/75, dated 30-4-1975. The surviving part of the controversy relates to 1620 pieces of galvanised steel taper tubes fitted with bend and socket. These are known in the trade as "Hamilton tubes". The appellants did not turn up despite a date of hearing and so we have heard Shri. A.K. Jain, SDR for the Revenue.2. In their revision application the appellants contend that the Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta held that in respect of the 1620 pieces of Hamilton tubes the differential Central Excise amounting to Rs. 14,175.64 should be paid and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed.On appeal to the Board, the demand for duty was confirmed and the penalty was set aside.3...
Gujarat State Cooperative Cotton Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC624Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government against order-in-appeal mentioned above.On the setting up of this Tribunal, the Revision Application was transferred to it in terms of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. The undisputed facts of the case, briefly stated are that the appellants exported three consignments of raw cotton vide three shipping bills Nos. 1416 and 1417 dated 12-3-79 and 3757 dated 27-3-79.Export duty, as leviable at the relevant time, was assessed on the goods and paid by the appellants. Armed with ad hoc exemption order No.96 dated 18-4-79 issued under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Central Government, the appellants claimed refund of the export duty paid on the three consignments. The Assistant Collector by an order dated 4-11-80 rejected the claim on the basis that the goods had been exported prior to the issue of the a...
Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) (P) Ltd. Vs. New Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT39; 1987(13)DRJ290
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is the plaintiff's Revision Petition against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, dated 11-2-1985 reversing the order of the Sub-Judge, Delhi, granting injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. This is the second time when the Revision Petition has been brought to this court by the plaintiff. In the first revision, namely, C.R. 1054 of 1982 I had passed an order on 30-1 1-1982. It was contended in the said Revision Petition that the N.D.M.C. bad passed resolution No. 88 on 25-3-1981 whereby the N.D.M.C. had taken a policy decision to renew the licenses of the licensees in the Yaswant Place by taking additional 30 per cent license fee only. Two other questions raised in the suit were whether the plaintiff is the licensee or lessee of Chanakya Cinema and whether the agreement dated 29-3-1980 was vitiated by coercion or undue influence by the N.D.M.C. In my order dated 30-11-1982 I had stated : 'THE moot question is whether the cinema house of the plaintiff is c...
Jaihind Oil Mills Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC91Tri(Delhi)
(i) a recall of the order dated 12-8-1986 disposing of the appeal, (ii) grant of a fresh hearing to the appellant, and (iii) such further and other orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.2. The order dated 12-8-1986 sought to be recalled was our Order No.604/1986-A by which we dismissed the Revision Application which was transferred to the Tribunal and heard as if it were an appeal. There is no question of recall of that order or grant a fresh hearing, once it had been pronounced or communicated. Recalling an order, once made, is nothing short of setting it aside. All that we could do is to amend the order with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record in terms of S.129-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the Act). An amendment of the order does not require the order to be recalled. If there is a mistake apparent from the record, the order is merely amended without being recalled or withdrawn or set aside. A power to "amend" an order once mad...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »