Delhi Court October 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.
National India Rubber Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT133; 1988(34)ELT16(Del)
P.K. Bahari, J.(1) In this petition the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated July 21,1971, passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated January 5, 1972, passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated January 30, 1974, passed by respondent No. 4, by which the petitioner has not been allowed exemption from the payment of excise duty on the goods manufactured by the petitioner. (2) The tacts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of rubber goods including certain types of rubber tubing and rubber slaving popularly known in the trade by the name of Neoprene Rubber Tubing and Neoprene Rubber slaving. According to the petitioner, these tubes also are known as capillary tubing. The petitioner is stated to be supplying this rubber tubing to the Indian Explosives Limited. Gomia (M.P.) and these components are used mainly in the manufacture of detonators. It was pleaded that these rubber tubing are not used fo...
Ramwati Vs. Krishan Gopal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ292Del
P.K. Bahri, J.1. The short but interesting question of law arises in this appeal as to whether gratuity which was payable to an employee, who has died, is liable to be attached against decree for recovery of money passed against heirs of the employee and the decree was executable only against the estate of the employee in the hands of his heirs.2. The facts, in brief, are that Krishan Gopal, decree-holder, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1800 against Ramwati, Krishna Devi, Jasoda Bai and Baldev, daughters and son of Lakshmi Chand on the averment that Lakshmi Chand (since deceased) had borrowed Rs. 1450/- on April 3, 1964 and in consideration of which he executed a pronote agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. This suit was contested by defendants but was decreed on July 27, 1967 by Shri Shamsher Singh, Sub-Judge, with the direction that the decree would be executable against the estate inherited by the defendants from Lakshmi Chand, deceased.3. The execution application was filed...
All India Radio Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT279TriDel
1. The appellants imported several items under a Bill of Entry No. 247, dated 28-9-1980 and cleared the goods on payment of customs duty on merits as assessed by customs. Subsequently they made an application for rectification of Items (ii) to (viii) of the Bill of Entry. These items were assessed under various headings by customs whereas the appellants claimed reclassification under Heading 90.29(1) CTA on the ground that the imported goods were essential accessories of Sine Generator which is an instrument for measuring sound. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim holding that these were accessories and having been priced separately they had to be assesed on merits. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal as untenable, observing that the appellants did not prove their claim with reference to the catalogue. Hence this appeal.2. We heard Shri Subramanian, the learned representative of the appellants. Shri Subramanian referred to the various documents filed by them and submitt...
Dr. A.K. Rohtagi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT74TriDel
1. Dr. A.K. Rohtagi has come in appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported Ford Cortina 1600L. The revenue authorities had charged C V duty under Tariff Item 34(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant contended that the same has to be assessed under Tariff Item 34(2). His contention was not accepted and being aggrieved from the order passed by the lower authorities he filed an appeal to the Appellate Collector who also rejected the same. Being aggrieved from the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.3. Dr. A.K. Rohtagi, the appellant is present in the court and has reiterated the contentions made in the revision application which is being now treated as an appeal. Dr. Rohtagi has pleaded that the method adopted by the registration authorities for calculating CC should be accepted and if the same is accept...
Coromandel Garments Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT267TriDel
1. The appellants imported a fabric printing machine which is described as Arcamatic Continuous Fabric Printing Machine Model C Mark 1. This machine prints by heat transfer process from paper.2. On importation the goods were assessed under Heading 84.59(1). After clearing the machine on payment of duty the appellants applied for re-classification of the machine under Heading 84.40(1) and for consequential refund.3. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim for refund on the ground that the machine is a paper transfer printing machine for transfer of dyestuff on wide variety of knitted fabrics but it is also used for lamination purpose and hence it is general purpose machine covered by Heading 84.59(1).4. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the order holding that the imported machine was not used for printing a repetitive design on textiles. He also observed that the machine was not a calendering machine and hence the present appeal.5. We heard Shri S.B. Rane, Chief Purchase Off...
K.L. Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT356
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The short question for determination in this writ petition is whether the Government of India has legally and properly exercised its discretion under Section 10, read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act in refusing to make a reference of the dispute regarding the termination of the services of the petitioner to Industrial Tribunal. (2) The petitioner was appointed on 13.12.65 as a Quality Inspector in the Food Corporation of India, which is an instrument of the government. His appointment letter provided that, 'He will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of his appointment which may be extended by a further period not exceeding six months. On satisfactory completion of probation he will be considered for confirmation in that post.' The Food Corporation of India has framed the regulation governing the conditions of service of its employees. Regulation 4.19 provides for the period of probation. The first three regulations are relevant for ...
Man Chand Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ117
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) Delhi Administration required vast areas of land for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of Delhi and issued the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on November 13, 1959. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to 569 Bighas and 19 bids was of land in Kotla Mahigram Estate was issued on December 28, 1961. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1374 and offered compensation for the acquired land by assessing its value block wise. He assessed the value for block 'A' at the rate of Rs.2,500.00 per bigha, for block 'B' at the rate of Rs.l,600.00 per bigha, for block 'C' at the rate ofRs.l,000.00 per bigha and for block 'D' at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per bigha. The appellants/their predecessors in-interest are aggrieved of the compensation tendered by the Collector and made a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation...
Bal Chand Bansal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi100
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (for short 'the Act'), seeks to have the order of detention quashed and also issuance of a writ of habcas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner and then to set him at liberty. (2) The petitioner was arrested on 3-4-1987 for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who remanded him to judicial custody up to 13-4-1987. The impugned order of detention was made on 13-4-1987 with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange. In the order of detention the petitioner has been described as Bal Chand @ Bal Chand Bansal @ Bal Chand Aggarwal @ Bal Chand Rajgarhia. The petitioner was detained in pursuance to the order of detention on 13-4-1987 itself while he was in judicial custody. He...
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC53
1. Under order dated 26.2.1982, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Udaipur sanctioned refund claims of the appellants M/s. 3.K.Industries Ltd., in respect of additional duty of customs paid on 21.11.1980, 12.3.1981 and 8.6.1981. This duty had been paid by them at the times of removal from the bonded warehouse to which the goods had been brought after import at Bombay under bill of entry dated 20.8.1980. Subsequently, the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur issued notice on 17.8.1982 under Section 130(2) of the Customs Act as he was of the opinion that the said order of the Assistant Collector was incorrect. After adjudication, the Collector passed order dated 17.5.1983 under which he held that the order of the Assistant Collector was wrong with reference to the duty paid on 21-11-1980. Accordingly, he ordered recovery of the refund in respect of that amount and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector in that regard. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard S...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT695TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras setting aside the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector in C.No.V/1B/17/8/84.B.6, dated 26-2-1985 the department has filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop: The respondents firm had filed their price list No. 3/84 as revised by price list No. 5/84 claiming exclusion of the cost of glass jars from the assessable value on the ground that the glass jars used for packing Bournvita are durable in nature and are returnable. This claim was dis-allowed by the Additional Collector and consequently the Assistant Collector approved the price list 3/84 as revised by price list 5/84 wherein the assessable value claimed for approval was revised to include the cost of packing. Against this order the respondents filed their appeal which was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) with consequential benefits after setting aside adjudication order passed by the Assistant Col...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »