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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Captainganj Distillery
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC40
1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the "Spent Wash" is chargeable to Central Excise duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise charged duty of Rs. 3,767/- in respect of spent wash cleared by the Appellants. On appeal, the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, by the impugned order. The Collector (Appeals) held as follows :- "The appellants have, however, explained that Spent Wash was generated during the course of distillation in their manufacturing premises and as this was water pollutant and was capable of damaging the standing crops etc., they were draining it out to a distance of 1.5 Kms. away from the factory and treating it biologically/chemically. This would demonstrate that Spent Wash as such was neither consumable nor was of any use to the appellant. It is at a distance of 1.5 Kms. away from the factory that it was drained and was made fit for...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Allied Computers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC379Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by order-in-appeal No. 55/81 dated 15.7.1981 decided that the microcomputer trainer model MCT-1 manufactured by M/s. Allied Computers was not assessable under Item 33DD of the Central Excise Tariff. In arriving at his conclusion, he gave much weight to the opinion of the Department of Electronics, Government of India, which said that the product was not a computer falling under tariff Item 33DD of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The Government of India by a notice dated 28.12.1981 issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, wanted to review the decision of the Appellate Collector. It is this notice that is the cause for this hearing before us.3. The learned Counsel for the manufacturers, Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, placed before this Tribunal the facts regarding this microcomputer. He referred not only to the opinion of the Department of Electronics but also and chiefly, to the printed literature, their letter dated...
Narang Wool Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT747TriDel
1. The appellants, M/s. Narang Wool Co. imported Rabbit Skin, Raw by SS Ganguin under Bill of Entry Cash No. 8532 dated 22-5-1981 and by SS Renoir under Bill of Entry Cash No. 2684 dated 28-3-1981, countervailing duty had been collected in respect of both consignments under Section 3(1) of the CTA trading the goods as falling under T.I.68 CET. In respect of consignment under bill of entry cash No. 2684 dated 28-3-1981 auxiliary duty of customs had also been collected and though this was also the subject-matter of issue before the lower authorities and a claim had been made with reference thereto in the revision petition also Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellants stated before us that the claim in this regard is not being pressed.Therefore in these appeals we are concerned only with the collection of countervailing duty as mentioned above.2. In respect of both consignments the appellants had applied for refund of countervailing duty and same had been rejected by the Assistant ...
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC553Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported, under a Bill of Entry No. 1416 dated 24.2.83, two 'Automatic Nut Making Machines Comprising one Blanking Press REMP 16N and one Finishing Press KP-16 & Accessories, etc." The goods were assessed provisionally and allowed clearance against a bond.The benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus was extended. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants threatening the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus. After due process, which included personal hearing to the appellants, the Assistant Collector held that the Blanking Press (BP for short) would not be entitled to the concessional assessment under Notification No. 40/78-Cus. because the product manufactured by it is not a 'Nut'. Benefit of the Notification was extended to the Finishing Press because the product manufactured by it was considered to be a 'Nut' (without threading).2. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector...
Om Prakash Singh Chauhan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT113
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) In this appeal, Om Parkash Singh has challenged the correctness of the finding of fact given by the Additional Sessions Judge holding him guilty under Section 376 Indian Penal Code . and sentencing him to undergo R, for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000.00 , in default of payment of fine to further under go R.I. for six months. (2) Public Witness . 2 Smt. Devki is the prosecutrix. On the basis of her statement, F.I.R. Ex. Public Witness . 2/A under Section 376 Indian Penal Code . was recorded in Police Station, Shakar Pur. She has unfolded the prosecution version in her examination-in chief alleging therein that she is 26 years old married woman having one child named Amit aged 4 years. At the time of the occurrence she was residing at 36, Krishan Kunj along with her husband. This house belongs to her father. The accused was a tenant of one or the rooms in the same premises. Narrating the incident she deposed that about I j year back at about 8.30 P.M., she was present...
Phool Chand JaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR308(Delhi); 1987(2)Crimes567; 32(1987)DLT4
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) Mr. Sud was heard. The petitioner was prosecuted on a police report under Section 186 Indian Penal Code . but the learned Magistrate has discharged him by his order dated May 3, 1983 after holding that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a bar to the taking of cognizance unless the complaint is made by the public servant himself or by his immediate superior.(2) Pursuant to this a complaint was subsequently made which came up before Shri. D.R. Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. An argument was raised before the learned Magistrate that the complaint was time-barred envisaged by section 468 C.r P.C. The learned the magistrate, however, seems to have fallen in an error and by curious reasoning dismissed the argument and decided to proceed in the matter and take cognizance by his order dated 17.2.86. According to him the cognizance of the case will be deemed to have been taken when the earlier challan was produced before the Magistrate which was...
Udhal Singh Verma Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC513Tri(Delhi)
1. The impugned order rejects an application filed by the appellant for gold dealers licence on 21.10.1980. It was later on amended on 13.10.1981 due to change of the proposed business premises. The appellant is a certified goldsmith since October 1970. There are two main grounds on which the appellant's application for gold dealers licence has been rejected. First one is that the appellant had been penalised in 1979 to the extent of Rs. 500/- for improper maintenance of accounts vide order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has held that in terms of Rule 2(e)(i) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the appellant would not be entitled to a gold dealers licence. Secondly it has also been held that the appellant does not fulfill the condition in proviso (b) to Rule 2(f) of the said Rules inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has felt that his educational background...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Air Conditioning Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC64
1. The respondents manufacture two parts of Blowers - Impellers and Propellers. They use them in the assembly of air conditioners and water coolers manufactured by them. When fitted inside an air conditioner or water cooler, the two parts, alongwith the motor of the air-conditioner and the water cooler, assume the form and shape of an electric blower or fan and function as such. The controversy in this appeal is whether such electric blower or fan should be charged to duty under item 33(3) of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The Appellate Collector, whose impugned order is sought to be set aside by the department, took the view that such blowers were without a casing and were commercially not known as electric blower or fan. The learned representative of the department slated that the frame of the air-conditioner or the water cooler itself served as a casing for the blower. He introduced photographs of the blower and invited our attention to page 706 of the Mc~ Graw Hill Concise Encyclope...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. the Sirpur Paper Mills Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC393Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents have, by their letter dated 3.2.1987, waived the right of personal hearing. We have, accordingly, heard the learned Joint Chief Departmental Representative, perused the record and carefully considered the matter.2. The subject revision show cause notice issued by the Central Government seeks to deny the benefit of exemption notification No.201/79-CE dated 4.6.1979 to the respondents on the ground that the goods, namely, "45 plain diagonal all bronze metal clothes" received by the respondents were used by them as spare parts of the paper making machinery and not as input or raw material in the manufacture of paper.We reproduce below the relevant portions of the exemption notification, as then in force: Set-off of Duty on use of Duty Paid Goods Falling Under Item 68 (Tariff Items 1 to 68) In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of...
Om Wati Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas801(Delhi)
1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, dated 30th January, 1984. The suit was filed by the respondent Smt. Bhatiri, wife of Badan Singh, and Badan Singh, son of Sindhu Ram, against the present petitioner, Smt. Om Wati, widow of Gopi Ram, who was the son of Smt. Bhatiri and Shri Badan Singh. Gopi Ram was working in Delhi Transport Corporation as a conductor. He died on 28th February, 1982. The dispute is regarding the amount of provident fund, gratuity, security deposit, unpaid salary, group insurance and benevolent fund. The plaintiffs as mother and father claimed half share in these amounts standing to the credit of the deceased, Gopi Ram, with the DTC. During his life time, Gopi Ram had filed a declaration for nomination under From 2 of Para 61 of the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952. In the said declaration for nomination, he has nominated his wife, Om Wati, for the purposes of the emp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »