Delhi Court December 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Balarampur Chini Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC79
1. On claim preferred by the respondents M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Limited under Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 20.4.1978, orders were passed on 7.10.1978 under which they took credit (of the amount granted) on 8.10.1978. Subsequently, notice dated 5.9.1979 was issued to them pointing out that in respect of the free sale sugar subsequently cleared by them (with reference to which also the claim had been earlier preferred and allowed) the duty paid by them at the time of clearance was less than the amount for which rebate had been allowed earlier, and hence the differencial amount was to be repaid by them. Subsequently, the said notice was cancelled by issue of a fresh notice dated 26.11.1979, the purport of this second notice also being to call upon them to show cause why the amount ought not to be recovered from them. On receipt of their reply and after adjudication, the Assistant Collector passed an order confirming the demand. On their appeal the said order was set aside by t...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ceat Tyres (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT333TriDel
1. The question for decision in these appeals by Revenue is classification for the purpose of customs of Crystex 20 which the respondents have described as insoluble sulphur also called Sulphur whether it falls under heading 38.01/19( 1) - Misc. Chemicals products - Chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries not elsewhere specified as claimed by appellants or under Chapter 25 - Salt, Sulphur, earth and stone plastering materials, lime and cement heading 25.01/32 Minerals substances not elsewhere specified (including sulphur...) (10) insoluble sulphur as claimed by respondents are found by Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order. It may be stated that Chapter 28 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Chapter Note 2(13) provides for sulphur sublimed or precipitated, colloidal sulphur being classified in this chapter. But both the parties agreed that classification under this chapter for the goods imported is ruled out. The competitio...
Usha Sales Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aruna Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ72
(1) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported as Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, : [1961]3SCR763 . The learned counsel for the defendants also relied upon this authority.(2) The perusal of this Supreme Court authority goes to upheld the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The following excerpts from the Supreme Court authority would go to make the point clear :- '......THE short question is whether the High Court, in the circumstances of the case. was powerless to enlarge the time, even though it had peremptorily fixed the period for payment... Section 148 of the Code, in terms, allows extension of time, even if the original period fixed has expired, and Section 149 is equally liberal. A fortiori, those sections could be invoked by the applicant, when the time bad not actually expired.'(3) The following further observations : [1961]3SCR763 are also instructive:- 'HOW undesirable it is to fix time peremptorily for a fut...
Liakat Ali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes647; 34(1988)DLT192; 1988(15)DRJ63
H.C. Goel, J. (1) This is an appeal by Liakat Ali, appellant, against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the order sentencing him to life imprisonment there under passed by the court of Shri T.S. Oberoi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant used to sell fruits near Moti Cinema, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The case of the prosecution is that on August 4, 1982 the appellant returned home, being house No. C-136, Jahangirpuri, Delhi late in the night, namely at about 12.30 mid-night. The appellant asked his wife Aliya deceased to serve food to him. Aliya (old him that no food was available for him at that late hour. The appellant got annoyed thereby. He gave a beating to his wife Aliya deceased. He then sprinkled kerosene oil on her person and set her to fire. On hearing the cries of Aliya, Zain-ul-abdin (Public Witness 1) and Hassan (Public Witness 2), the two neighbours of the appellant, reached the house of the appellant. They f...
Nand Ram Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1983(2)Crimes417; 1988(14)DRJ249; 1988(15)ECC397; 1988RLR112
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). The petitioner seeks his release on bail for an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for Short 'the Act').(2) The petitioner was arrested on 25-7-1987. Four kg. of charas was recovered from his possession. He was produced before the duty magistrate on 26-7-1987 who remanded him to judicial custody up to 7-8-1987. On this date, the petitioner was again remanded to judicial custody till 21-8-1987. On this date, he was not produced before the magistrate concerned. On the following day, however, an application was moved by the investigating officer wherein it was stated that the petitioner was to appear in court on 21-8-1987 but did not turn up. His production warrant was thereforee sought to be issued to the Superintendent Jail. The learned magistrate directed production warrant for 8-9-1987, on which date a report under S...
Kasturi Lal Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(34)ELT444(Del)
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.1. By this writ petition it is prayed that the Panchnamas dated 21st August, 1987 filed as Annexure 'A' and 'B' whereby the goods of the petitioner were taken away by the Customs Officers may be quashed and the said goods may be ordered to be released.2. It appears that certain Panchas were called by the Central (Preventive) Branch of Delhi Collectorate to witness the search of the business premises of the petitioner at Nai Sarak, Delhi. By virtue of the search authorisation, the search was conducted and the goods of the descriptions mentioned in the Panchnamas were recovered. In the Panchnama, Annexure 'A' it is stated that the Proprietor, Shri K.L. Nagi, petitioner, produced the purchase bills of the said goods. It is then recited in the Panchnama 'on reasonable belief by the Customs Officer kept the above said (recovered) goods under detention and take over the same under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 for further verification of the lawful importation/...
Ojas Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC643Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, manufactured laundry soap and among other forms of the same, they also manufactured soap chips. They were availing of benefit under Notification No. 28/64, dated 1.3.1964 as amended for the reason that they were not using power in the manufacture of the soap. They were however found to have manufactured soap chips with the aid of power and the Revenue raised a duty demand in respect of these chips. As seen from the record these chips were manufactured by the appellants out of side cuttings of tops, bottoms and waste of blocks of soap which they manufactured without the aid of power. It appears side cuttings etc. arose in the course of the cuttings of the blocks into soap in requisite sizes.3. The learned advocate for the appellants pleaded that the soap manufactured by them was household laundry soap and the scrap and waste which arose in the p...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sunray Computers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC362
1. The respondents manufacture and sell computers. The dispute in this appeal of the department is whether - should form a part of the value of the computers for purposes of assessment of central excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 2. The dispute pertains to 5 price-lists of 1983. The respondents filed these price-lists in Part II, separate for each contract of sale. The purchase order itself was Annexed to the price lists and it disclosed the goods and the services to be supplied and the charges therefor.When we saw the price-lists, we found that they were stamped with an un-dated approval endorsement by the Assistant Collector. A doubt arose in our mind whether after having approved the price-lists, net of the software and service charges, the Assistant Collector could re-open the assessment on his own. The learned representative of the department then explained that the sequence of events was not so. He stated that as soon as the respondents filed the p...
Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(34)ELT542(Del)
P.K. Bahri, J.1. In the first writ petition the petitioner has sought directions for quashing orders dated April 14, 1972, May 17, 1973 and July 30, 1975, of the Assistant Collector-Respondent No. 4, the Appellate Collector-Respondent No. 3 and the Joint Secretary Respondent No. 2 respectively and for directions to the respondents to refund the excess duty paid by the petitioners on the full quantity attributed to the enlargement of capacity as claimed under application dated 5/6th June, 1970.2. In the second writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated March 2, 1977 and order dated August 20, 1977, made in appeal and order dated March 21, 1979, passed in revision by respondents 4, 3 & 2 respectively and for directions to the respondents to allow the concessional rates in duty as admissible under the Exemption Notification Nos. 163/65 and 208/67 read with Notification No. 21/68.3. Facts leading to the filing of these two writ petitions are that the petitioner-co...
Collector of Customs Vs. Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT259TriDel
1. The issue that arises in this appeal is that whether the "Load Haul Dumpers" is a motor vehicle for transport of persons, goods or materials, assessable under Heading 87.02(1) or is a "Loading Machine" assessable under Heading 84.22.2. Shri J. Gopinath, SDR submitted that the Board had made a reference to CCCN and after addressing the DGTD has decided to classify the "Load Haul Dumpers" under Heading 84.22. He, therefore, states that he has instructions not to press this appeal.In the circumstance stated by the SDR, the appeal is dismissed as "not pressed"....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »