Delhi Court February 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
East Punjab Traders and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC113
1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 27-5-1985. Since three appeals arise out of the same order, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants imported what is described in the relevant invoices and Bills of Entry is "100% polyester lining material size 44". The price as per invoice was US$ 0.35 C.I.F. and the suppliers are M/s Shabi Boeki Shokai, Higashi Ku P.O., Osaka, Japan. The import was effected in three vessels namely, "s.s. Raya Glory", "s.s. Raya Fortune" and "s.s. Portoroz". The ships arrived on 4-11-1983 and 2-12-1983. The Bills of Lading were dated as follows :-Raya Glory 25-3-83 A total quantity of 3,01,393 yards was imported and the value declared was Rs. 10,86,375/-. 29 Bills of Entry were filed. Originally details of 13 import licences issued under 0.1 and 0.2 of Appendix 17 of Import Policy AM 1983 were given in respect of 5 Bills of Entry of appellants M/s East Punjab Traders...
Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT133TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture tyres for motor vehicles. During the period from 9.5.1974 to 23.2.1976, they cleared a certain quantity of O.E. (Original Equipment) Tyres for sale to moter vehicle manufacturers. Some unsold quantity out of it was still held in their outside depots when, on 24.2.1976, they reduced the sale prices of O.E.Tyres. The stock was sold later at such reduced prices. On 2.1.1977, they filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,81,571.45, being the differential duty refundable on account of the difference between the earlier assessed value and the actual sale price of the O.E. tyres realised by them later. The lower authorities have rejected their claim on the ground that no notice could be taken of the reduction in the sale prices subsequent to the clearance of the goods on payment of duty since the price prevalent at the time of removal of the goods from the factory and not at the time of sale was the criterion for assessment in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excises and...
Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC119Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal was originally filed as revision application and on statutory transfer is being treated as if it were an appeal filed before this Tribunal. The appeal is against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs. Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had imported one Oscillator Tube which failed in performance during the guarantee period and another tube was sent as replacement therefor by the suppliers. The appellant was called upon to pay duty in respect of this replacement tube. The tube was supplied at no charge basis by the suppliers for failure of the earlier tube during the guarantee period. The appellants' claim for benefit under Notification 80/70, dated 29-8-1970 was turned down by the lower authorities as the goods were not held to be the private personal property of the importers who are a public limited company. The appellant's plea is that the item imported cannot be termed as trade goods as they were not engaged in sale and purchase of A...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Subhash Chandra
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC137
On 2-1-1982, the Gold Control Officers of Central Excise Collectorate, New Delhi visited the licensed premises of M/s. Prem Nath Jewellers, Krishan Nagar, Delhi .where they noticed the appellant Shri Subhash Chander found sitting in the shop. On enquiries from him by the Gold Control Officers he stated that he was carrying in his brief case gold ornaments, (nose pins). His brief case was examined in the presence of two witnesses and nose pins weighing 292.700 gms. (fixed on two pieces of card-board) and small parts of nose pins weighing 5.400 gms. (wrapped in a piece of paper) were recovered. On enquiry the appellant admitted that he did not possess any voucher or permit for the acquisition, possession, custody or control of the said ornaments. The same were, therefore, seized under Section 66 of the Gold Control Act. The appellant in his statement before the Gold Control Officers stated that he is certified goldsmith and had come to Delhi from Amritsar the previous day; that he had m...
S. Prakash and Bros. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT65TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. S. Prakash & Bros, imported two consignments of Glass Chatons and claimed benefit of concessional assessment under Notification No. 29-Cus., dated 10-2-1979. This concession was denied and duty at the normal rate was collected. The appeal preferred against the said order of assessment was dismissed by the Appellate Collector under order dated 24-6-1982. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant for the appellants and Shri Veneet Kumar for the department.3. Notification No. 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979 exempted goods specified in the table attached to the notification and used in the leather industry from part of custom duty and additional duty. Item No.12 of the table read during the relevant time "Buckles and other embellishments for footwear". The appellants claimed concessional assessment on the ground that the Glass Chalons were embellishments for footwear. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim holding that n...
Bishamber Sahai Roorkee Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD16(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, filed by different assessees, arise out of separate orders, both dated 30-9-1985, of the learned Appellate Asstt.Commissioner, Dehradun for the assessment year 1981-82. Since the point raised in both the appeals as also the facts are common, these appeals are being disposed of, for the sake of convenience, by one common order.2. The assessees who are individuals, are partners in the registered firm M/s Bishambhar Sahai Surender Kumar, Roorkee having 50% share each. For the assessment year 1978-79 the said firm was assessed at a loss of Rs. 60,000 which was allocated between the two partners in equal shares i.e. at Rs. 30,000 each. Similarly for the assessment year 1979-80 the said firm was assessed at a loss of Rs. 90,000 and the loss was allocated equally between the two partners i.e. @ Rs. 45,000 each.For the assessment year 1980-81, however, the said firm was assessed at a positive income of Rs. 22,670. Since it was the case of a registered firm the losses suf...
Syed Mushir Ahmed Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police (South District) N ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT29
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner was given a show cause notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act to show cause as to why action against him shall not be taken under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. The notice is based on three cases; F.I.R. No. 889 of 1974 under Sections 304/506 I.P.C Police Station Kalkaji, Delhi, F.I.R. 95/1976 under Sections 506 and 457 Indian Penal Code , Police station Kalkaji and F.I.R. No. 401/78 under Sections 147, 148 149,452 and 506 Indian Penal Code . Police Station Hauz Khas New Delhi. The notice was given on 1-6-1979 by respondent No. 1. (2) The aggrieved petitioner has challenged it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that the impugned notice be quashed. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Trade Union Leader and in that connection he is fighting for the redress of grievances of the labourers and for that reason he has been leading many demonstrations. He has further said that in this connection some po...
Rajeshwar Parshad and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT340
Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the respondent in not granting extension of time with ragard to the building plans which bad been sanctioned earlier. (2) Very briefly stated the facts are that one Ganga Wati was the owner of the property No. 16 Alipur Road, Delhi. She decided to develop the same into a Group Housing Complex. Layout plans were submitted on 11th January, 1965 and the same were approved by the Standing Committee of the Corporation. Permission was then sought to construct 21 dwelling units and the building plans were sanctioned on 25th July, 1966. (3) The petitioners herein purchased the rights of Ganga Wati on December 20, 1967. They, however, constructed and completed only 18 dwelling units as alleged by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that these dwelling units were constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plans. (4) On 19th April, 1969, revised layout and building plans were submitted in respect of four block...
B.D. Tripathi Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT14; 1987LabIC1886
Mohinder Narain, J. (1) The petitioner who was working as an Accounts Assistant in the Indian Airlines Corporation, decided to go to Colombo. With that intent, he purchased a ticket through a travel agent M/s. Worldwide Agencies (P) Ltd., New Delhi, on 19th May, 1983. The petitioner being stationed at Delhi, had to make K an application for leave to go out of Delhi. He made such an application on 24th May, 1983. This was an application that sought casual leave for 25th May, 1983. By this application the petitioner also sought permission to leave the station. The reason for taking leave mentioned in this application was that the petitioner had some domestic work. He also gave his address during the period of leave as 160, Gagan Vihar Extension, Delhi, which is his residential address. (2) The fact of the matter is that the petitioner left for Madras on 25th May, 1983 by the Indian Airlines flight in the early hours of the morning. He spent a day in Madras and left Madras for Colombo on ...
Shri Ram Rayons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC151
1. The appellants manufacture rayon tyre yarn cord, etc. The yarn and cord are wound on paper tubes. The corrugated paper discs are inserted in the paper tubes so that these tubes do not collapse when the yarn and cord are wound around the same. After winding, the paper tubes are placed in cardboard boxes. The appellants claim that in terms of Notification No. 201/79-CE (hereinafter referred to as the said notification), these three goods are 'inputs' and, therefore, the duty paid on the same should be allowed as set off on the duty payable on the final product, namely, on the nylon yarn and cord. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise disallowed the claim holding that the packing materials in the form of the three articles are not essential ingredients for the manufacture of the rayon tyre yarn and cord, "despite the fact that the cost of packing is included in the assessable value of these items on clearance under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944." 2. An appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »