Delhi Court February 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.
Dorje Wangchuk Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ221; 1987(12)DRJ237; 1989(41)ELT67(Del)
ORDER1. Rule in this petition was issued on 19th December, 1986. The respondents have neither appeared nor have they filed a return despite service. Under these circumstances I have heard Mr. N. S. Mathur on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The husband of the petitioner, Dorje Wangchuk (detenu in this case) was detained in pursuance of an order dated 9th August, 1986. The order was passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under S. 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention was ordered with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. 3. Before I take up for consideration the contentions raised by Mr. Mathur, a brief reference may be made to the incident that ultimately culminated in the passing of the said detention order. On 22nd June, 1986 at about 4.30 hours the Customs Officers of Basti signalled a tourist bus number DEP 7788 to stop near the br...
Uptron Powertronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC114; 1987(28)ELT61(Del)
Yogeshwer Dayal, J. 1. This Writ Petition impugns an order dated 26.5.86 whereby the learned customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, directed the petitioner to deposit 50 percent of the sum demanded as a pre-condition before hearing of the appeal by a particular date. 2. It specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the Tribunal need not go into the question of prima-facie nature of the case of the appellant. To say the least, this approach is totally incorrect in law. In every case if the appellant wants any discretionary relief in this favor, he has first to show prima facie, substance in his claim. On this being done he then has to further show under hardship to him. The reverse is not to be done, i.e. first show hardship, and if he cannot show hardship then further question arises of prima facie substance in the claim before the Appellate Authority. Merely because the petitioner are subsidiary of U.P. Electronics Corporation, it does not mean that it ...
Faridabad Spinning and Wollen Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Janta Builders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas595(Delhi); 31(1987)DLT299
Leila Seth, J. (1) This civil revision is directed against the order dated 22nd April, 1985, passed by Ms. Aruna Suresh, Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi dismissing the application, under Order xviii Rule 17A, Civil Proceedure Code, read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for summoning a clerk from the office of the Registrar of Companies, Calcutta to prove the certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff-company, issued by the Registrar of Companies, Calcutta under section 35 of the Companies Act and/or producing a certified copy of the said certificate. (2) The facts in brief are that the plaintiff. The Faridabad Spinning & Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against the defendant on 30th November, 1983, for recovery of Rs. 24 372.40 p. A photocopy of the certificate of incorporation was filed along with the plaint. On 22nd April, 1985 when the plaintiff was leading its evidence, it sought to prove this certificate. However, the defendant objected to the admissibility of the documen...
Lalit Mohan and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT30
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The petitioners are regular and confirmed employees of the respondent-corporation holding the ranks of Wiremen Grade Ii, Electric Motor Driver and Beldar in the Electric Department (General Wing) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Their grievance in this petition is that they are not being considered for promotion at the time when some master roll employees are being inducted into the various posts in this Department. (2) The paramedical structure of the aforesaid categories of employees is as follows :- (I) Wiremen Grade I (Class III). (II) Wiremen Grade Ii (Class IV). (III) Electric Motor Driver (Class IV). (IV) Beldar (Class IV). Though there are no statutory rules for recruitment to the aforesaid posts, nevertheless the respondent-corporation has from time to time passed resolutions purporting to frame some-recruitment rules.These rules have been framed for recruitment to the posts of Electric Motor Driver, Workmen Grade If (Class IV) and Workman Grade I ...
Renu Seth Vs. Industrial and Allied Sales (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT322
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This Revision Petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been filed by the owner-landlady against the dismissal of her petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act. (2) The petitioner had pleaded in paragraph 18-A of the petition as under: 'THE petitioner is the owner/landlady of the house No. 18 Rajdoot Marg, Chankayapuri, New Delhi and bonafide requires the suit premises under the occupation of the respondent for herself and the members of her family who are dependent upon her and that the premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes only. The petitioner is at present living in a rented house at Lucknow. The petitioner's husband who was running a sugar factory in U.P. has been taken over by the Government and the petitioner's husband started another Pencil Factory in Lucknow which has also failed. The petitioner and her family members want to settle down at Delhi to start new business in Delhi. The pet...
Jayshree Insulators Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC62
1. Short question involved in this stay application is whether in considering dispensation of prior deposit of duty and/or penalty in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) question of financial hardship alone is to be considered by the Tribunal, while dispensing with the prior deposit or other factors such as prima facie strength of the case are also to be looked into.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that the financial position of the applicant in the instant case is very sound. However, the demand raised against the applicant by the impugned order is totally untenable in law and prima facie unjustifiable. Although there may not be any financial hardship if the duty demanded is deposited before the appeal is heard, yet it would cause undue hardship inasmuch as the demand made is illegal and not tenable at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. He relies for this proposition on Calcutta High Court's j...
Konark Televisions Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT481TriDel
A common issue is involved in these eight appeals. We shall, therefore, dispose of all of them by this combined order. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to M/s. Konark Television as 'the appellants' and the respondent Collector as 'the department'.2. The common issue in all these appeals is whether the amount of Rs. 550/- per Television set recovered by the appellants towards annual service charges for the second and the third year (i.e., after expiry of the free warranty period of twelve months) should be included in the assessable value of their Television sets. No other point was pressed before us.3. The appellants are an undertaking of the State Government of Orissa.They manufactured and sold Television sets. These sets were leviable to Central Excise duty at different slab rates depending upon the value of the set. The lower the value, the lower was the rate of duty. The appellants gave a warranty for twelve months for their sets. During the period, they repaired the se...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Katare Cotton Waste Spinning
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT733TriDel
1. These three proceedings were initiated by the Central Government by issue of the three respondents of a show cause notice F. No.198/8/19/31-34/81 CXV dated 27th March, 1981 under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. By this notice, the Government proposed to set aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 150-153 of 1980 dated 3.10.1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs allowing the appeals filed by the respondents before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The notice also proposed to restore the orders of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad which had been set aside by the Board by the aforementioned order-in-appeal.2. The issue involved in these three cases is similar. The Collector had held that the yarn manufactured by the respondents using yellow pickings could not be accepted as yarn manufactured out of cotton waste and that exemption from excise duty in terms of notification No. 95/61 dated 1.4.1961 was not admissible. The Board had held tha...
R.R. Paints Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC684Tri(Delhi)
1. These batches of appeals involve the issues whether the following discounts or deductions claimed by the appellants from their FOR destination prices of various products manufactured by them are permissible or not :- First three deductions referred to above are common to all the 13 appeals. The last deduction claimed on account of Central Sales Tax is common to the last mentioned batch of 11 appeals.2. It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay that he has merely endorsed the order passed by the lower authority, namely the Assistant Collector. Therefore, in order to examine the reasons as to why the various deductions as claimed by the appellants have been disallowed, we shall have to examine the reasons given by the Assistant Collector of Customs.3. Before a detailed examination of the various claims made by the appellants is made it is necessary to set out in brief the sale pattern of the appellants as narrated by them and not controverted by...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Asiatic Oxygen Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT247TriDel
1. Vide order dated 26-12-1986 we have inter alia granted time to Mrs.Chander to ascertain from the appellant - Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, whether any authorisation in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was issued in favour of the Assistant Collector who presented the appeal to the Tribunal.2. Smt. Chander today stated that she has addressed a letter by name to the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur but no reply to the same had been received. She prayed for more time to furnish this information.Shri K.K. Ganguly, learned Consultant for the other party strongly opposed this request. He stated that he had come all the way from Calcutta for this matter. The amount of duty involved was small and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case no further time should be granted to the appellant to get the information or remedy this defect.3. Duty amount involved in the present appeal is less than Rs. 100/- and sufficient t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »