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.
Pritam Shah Singh Vs. Climate Engineering and Maintenance Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT16; 1988(14)DRJ90
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) I had pronounced judgment in this revision petition after hearing counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, an application was made being C.M. No. 2394 of 1987 with the prayer that the judgment passed by me, which was given without hearing the respondent be set aside and the respondent be provided an opportunity to make his submissions on behalf of the respondent and the revision petition be decided on merits after hearing the respondent. (2) On 28th August, 1987, Mr. Dayal appeared for the petitioner and stated that he had no objection to the grant of the application and further stated that he had already been beard and the matter be listed for hearing the respondent. (3) As I had already heard the counsel for the appellant, I beard the counsel for the respondent and now proceed to judgment. (4) The facts given rise to this Revision are that a petition for eviction of the respondent M/s. Climate Engineering & Maintenance Company from property No. C-66, Nizamuddin...
Rajni Gupta Vs. the Mother's International School and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT262
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This is a writ petition for quashing the order dated March 3, 1979, passed by respondent No. 3 by which he gave a finding that the the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated. (2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed by respondents 1 & 2 as Librarian on October 18, 1972 and was also provided unfurnished accommodation in the Aurobindo Ashram. The petitioner proceeded on maternity leave on August 17, 1973. According to the petitioner, she reported back for duty but she was not assigned any work. On November 7, i975, the petitioner served , a notice on respondents 1 & 2 seeking the arrears of salary of the period of last two years. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated November 21, 1975, that the( petitioner had abandoned her job with the respondents with effect from December .1, 1973J and since then her name bad been removed from the rolls of the school. The petitioner file a an appeal under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education A...
Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC47Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the dispute is on the appellants' claim to exclude the cost of cartons and gunny bags as durable and returnable containers within the meaning of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The period of dispute is from 1-1-1978 to 31-12-1984.2. The appellants manufactured glass bottles. They delivered them in two types of packing : (1) IN OPEN CRATES: The crates belonged to the appellants. The customer was billed for the cost of glass bottles only. The crates were returnable to the appellants within 30 days. The department has not included the cost of such crates in the assessable value. The department has also not included the cost of packing, if any, supplied by the customer himself. There is no dispute about these packings. (2) IN CARTONS AND GUNNY BAGS: These belonged to the appellants but their cost was realised from the customer alongwith the cost of glass bottles. The appellants say that these packings were also returnable and in many cases ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Orkay Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC179
1 This is a deemed appeal within the meaning of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and has its genesis in Show Cause Notice F. No. 198/5/39/82-CX.5, dated 18th May, 1982 issued by the Central Government under Section 36(2) of the Act to M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) proposing to set aside Order-in-Appeal No. V-2(18)3217/81, dated 22-12-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Since the proceedings initiated with the said notice had remained unconcluded on the eve of the inception of this Tribunal, they were transferred to it in terms of Section 35P of the Act.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondents are engaged in the activity of texturising polyester Nylon Filament Yarn, indigenous as well as imported. This work is undertaken by them both on their own account as well as on job basis. M/s. Deluxe India Exports, Bombay, sent...
Union Carbide (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT286TriDel
1. This is an appeal by M/s. Union Carbide against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) No. 245/83(M), dated 22-7-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. M/s. Union Carbide used cello poly films to pack batteries in a manner they call strips packing. The film is used in two layers between which the batteries are inserted; the two layers of film are then bonded together, with the batteries sealed inside. This is said to be the best packing for the battery as it insulates it from atmospheric pollution, moisture, air, dust etc. and keeps it in condition for a much longer time. According to the learned counsel Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, without this packing the battery cannot reach its customers, and therefore, the battery is not completed until it is packed in strip packing of cello poly film. Hence, he said they are entitled to the exemption under the notification No. 201/79-CE which allows exemption for all excisable goods, "in the manufacture of w...
Pibco Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC168
1. This matter has been referred for decision by the larger bench, since by its order dated 5-5-1987, the special bench consisting of S/Shri G. Sankaran, Vice-President (as he then was), Sh. V.T.Raghavachari, Member (J) was not inclined to agree with the view taken by the three members [S/Shri S. Venkatesan, Sr. Vice-President (as he then was), Smt. S. Duggal, Member (J), Sh. K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)], in the case of Punj Sons (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna (1983 E.L.T. 1866).2. The following facts will set out the controversy to be decided by this Bench :- The appellants manufacture "slagwool & Resin Bonded Slagwool" in their factory at Durgapur. These products are insulation material and are used for conservation of Thermal Energy. The process of manufacture is that the slag, which is a refuse separated from the metal (steel) in the process of melting, is mixed with fluxing agents like lime-stone etc. The mixed metal is melted in a cupila with hard coke. After the ...
Mahabir Jute Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC554Tri(Delhi)
1. Show cause notice dated 20-1-1982 was issued to the appellants M/s.Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2,43,894.95 paise should not be recovered from them as duty levied during the period April 1976 to 5-6-1979 in respect of laminated jute bags manufactured and cleared by them. On receipt of reply and on adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 10-4-1982 confirmed the demand in respect of the period 24-11-1977 to 5-6-1979 only (Rs. 2,38,904.60 paise), since the demand for the earlier period was barred even under the extended period provided under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 16-9-1983.This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Saxena for the Department.3. The case for the Department is that during the relevant period the laminated jute bags ...
Transpower Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT299TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, reviewed under sub-section (2) of Section 36-A of the Central Escises and Salt Act, 1944, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division XIII's order No. V68(30)85/SA/80, dated 19.2.1982 holding that that order was wrong.He held instead: "The process of galvanisation of fabricated articles is the process of manufacture within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and liable to pay duty under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff." Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector so far as it related to the process of galvanisation of the customers' articles received by the present appellants, Transpower Corporation, Taloja.2. The learned counsel for M/s. Transpower Corporation argued that the show cause notice was for clearances effected on 31.1.1980 and before.The demand notice was issued on 22.4.1980. Therefore, it was barred for most of the period except those falling within six months. T...
Avery India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC33Tri(Delhi)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured weighing machines falling under T.I. 45 CET. The appellants effected the sale of their goods from their depots situated in different regions of the country. One such depot is located in Calcutta. The appellants have different prices for sale of their goods from each depot and have no ex-factory sale price. They filed price list under Part I price under Section 4 (1)(a) and declared the wholesale price for assessment of all their clearances at ex-depot price of Calcutta. On a study of the pricing pattern of the appellants, the departmental authorities charged the appellants with declaration of lower price in the price list filed as they were found to have sold the goods at higher prices than those declared from their various depots in the country. The appellants before the issue of show cause notice were asked to furnish information regarding the prices at which goods were sold from their different depots and quantum there...
Asha Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ76; 1988RLR107
(1) Earlier, it is stated that the appellant was in the employment of Public Witness 5 Shri Kailash Chand, father of the prosecutrix, and had left the service on 1st January 1982. The accounts were finally settled by him with Shri Kailash Chand on 23rd January 1982. In this view, it is stated that the appellant was thoroughly known to the prosecutrix. (2) It is not possible to kidnap a girl in the crowded city on a scooter during broad day light in the manner in which she has stated. While she was with the appellant on the scooter she has even passed by the side of her home, she has travelled in crowded buses and has remained in crowded railway station. If she was not a consenting party there was plenty of scope for her to get out of this sordid episode. (3) Having found it to be so, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the prosecutrix in this case was a consenting party. The appellant also is a young boy, though technically speaking he is a major, but then the facts of the present ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »