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.
Sulakhan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ297
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a petition by Sepoy Sulakhan Singh of 20 Punjab Regiment, Fazilka for quashing orders filed as Annexures 'D' 'E' and 'F' to the writ petition. Annexure 'D' is the Charge-sheet as well as orders of the Officiating General Officer Commanding directing the trial of the petitioner by General Court Martial for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. (2) The petitioner was charged along with three others for committing murder of Hav. Lekh Ram on the night of 2/4/1983 & 3/4/1983 by causing his death. Annexure 'E' is the finding of the Court Martial finding the petitioner, Sulakhan Singh as guilty of the charge. The finding was announced subject to confirmation, and was awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life and also to be dismissed from the service. Annexure 'F' is the order of confirmation dated 19/5/1984 confirming the finding and sentence dated 4/2/1984. The appeal against the confirmation of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Authori...
Collector of Customs Vs. Appollo Tyres
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC473Tri(Delhi)
1. The questions that arise for consideration in this proceeding pursuant to a notice to show cause in terms of Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter, the Act) as it read at the material time - transferred to the Tribunal and heard as if it were an appeal in accordance with Section 131B(2) of the Act are : (a) Whether the notice to show cause issued, ostensibly under the erstwhile Section 131(3) of the Act, is in reality one under Sub-section (5) thereof and is barred by the limitation prescribed therein? (b) Whether the assessable value of the goods imported can be determined under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act? If not, which is the provision applicable? (c) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there has been suppression of facts or misdeclaration of value entailing confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(d) & (m) and levy of penalties under Sections 112 and 117 of the Act? If so what should be the penalties? (a) the appellant had entere...
Hindustan Platinum P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC110
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India, on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants hold Central Excise Licence for manufacture of goods falling under Tariff Item 68. The appellants manufacture various articles of silver. Silver falls under Item 24 of the First Schedule and is exempted from payment of excise duty under Notification No.24/65, dated 28-2-1965. On 27-10-1978, the appellants filed a classification list. In the remarks column, they mentioned that articles of Silver falling under Tariff Item 24 were exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by virtue of the Notification aforesaid. The Silver articles were products like silver rods, silver anodes, silver sheets. Silver plates, silver contacts, silver bi-metal contacts, silver contact material in the form of wire, sheets, strips etc. The Assistant Collector made An assessment that in respect of articles mentioned as a, b, c, d & e in Part-III, ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ram Nath Ram Kumar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC175
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi, allowing a claim for refund of Rs. 1,573.34, being the advance deposit made under compounded levy scheme by the respondents which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the same was preferred after 6 months.The respondents contended that the claim was return of the deposit and not of duty paid and that limitation under Rule 11 would not apply in their case. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal on two grounds.Firstly, that the refund sought was of advance deposit made under compounded levy scheme and not of duty paid, and secondly, that in this case limitation under Rule 11 was not applicable and that the general Law of Limitation would apply.2. Shri Rakesh Bhatia, SDR, appears on behalf of the department and submits that the claim having been preferred after more than one and ...
Shri Arvind M. Shah Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT638TriDel
1. This is a baggage matter. The appellant is aggrieved because his claim for transfer of residence concession was denied by the lower authorities.2. The appellant and his wife arrived in India on 9.2.1979, after a stay of about nine years in U.S.A. His un-accompanied baggage arrived later on 11.6.79. The authorities found that he had brought excess goods valued Rs. 20.200/-. In addition, goods worth Rs. 8,850A were found in his packages which he did not clear in his baggage declaration form dated 22.6.79 filed by Mm. The goods could have been cleared under the transfer of residence concession provided it was established that the appellant had possessed and used the goods abroad for at least one year. The appellant produced 8 purchase receipts before the authorities as evidence of possession. However, examination of the goods by the Superintendent of Customs revealed that the goods were new and not used. The appellant contested this finding before the adjudicating Additional Collector...
Bowreah Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT699TriDel
1. These two appeals (involving a similar issue) arise out of order-in-appeal No. 559-560/Cal/82, dt. 17-7-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. We have heard Shri N.C. Jain, Advocate for the appellants and Smt.D. Saxena, Sr. D.R. for the department.3. Since the issue involved in the present appeals has already been decided in a batch of appeals filed by the same appellants, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail.4. The basic common issue is the classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short) of blended yarn having the following composition:Polyster 48%Cotton 35%Polynosic 17% andPolyster 48%Cotton 22%Polynosic 30% The appellants herein claimed before the lower authorities that the correct classification of blended yarn having the aforesaid compositions was under Item No. 18 (HI) (ii) CET and had paid duty accordingly on the basis that fibre of cellulosic origin predominated in weight. The lo...
Nellimarla Jute Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC98
1. By adjudication Order No. 23/85 dated 26-2-1985, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam demanded from M/s Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") under Central Excise Rule 9(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983, an amount of Rs. 3,77,095.68 being the cess on jute yarn produced and captively consumed by the appellants during the period from 1-5-1984 to 30-9-1984 confirming the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 30-10-1984.2. Similarly, the Assistant Collector, by another order No. 29/85 dated 2-3-1985, confirmed the amounts of Rs. 2,91,620.57 and Rs. 45,256.57 demanded by show cause notice dated 30-10-1984 being the cess payable under Central Excise Rule 9(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983, during the period from 1-5-1984 to 30-9-1984 on sacking cloth produced and captively consumed within the factory and the differential amount of cess...
Sai Giridhara Supply Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC140Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in these appeals is proper classification of the appellants products carbon paper and carbonised adding machine rolls before amendment of Tariff item 17 in 1982 - whether the two products or any of them fell under item 17(2) of Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the Revenue or Tariff item 68 as claimed by the appellants and the allied question is that if the products or any of them be held classifiable under T.I. 17(2), the period for which demands should be raised.2. It might be stated that after the classification of the products had been decided by the lower authorities under T.I. 17(2) and not T.I.68 as originally approved and claimed by the appellants, leading to Appeal No. 1346/83-C to the Tribunal by the appellants, the demand consequent to this order of classification was quantified against the appellants.As respects this quantification another appeal No. 1284/84-C was filed by the appellants to the Tribunal. This appeal was not originally cause l...
Hindsutan Copper Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC59
1. The appellants - a Public Sector Undertaking - imported and cleared an ore sorter under a Bill of Entry No. DI-564 dated 16.7.1983. On certain representations being made by the importers/appellants, the Government of India issued an Exemption Order No. 191 dated 12.10.1983 under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act granting exemption from customs duty, auxiliary duty and additional duty. This order was to be valid upto, and inclusive of, 31.3.1984.2. The appellants, who paid the duty earlier, made an application for refund on the basis of the Exemption Order. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the same on the ground that the Exemption Order No.191 was issued subsequent to the importation of the goods and payment of duty thereon. While doing so, the Assistant Collector observed that the exemption under the authority of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, is, in fact, a post-facto exemption applicable only to subsequent importation of goods. (The Assistant co...
Madan Mohan Arora Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes619; 31(1987)DLT347
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J. (1) The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 161 Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200.00 or in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment was passed by learned Special Judge, Delhi, on 31.3.1976. (2) Staling briefly, the facts are that the appellant on the relevant date i.e. 6.7.74 was serving as Sub Post Master at the Daryaganj Post Office Delhi and in his capacity as public servant he was alleged to have accepted from one Shahid Parvez, a Sub Editor of 'Rubi' magazine and 'Pakiza', a sum of Rs. 100.00 at the office of 'Rubi' magazine at 18 Ansari Road, Delhi. This was allegedly accepted by him as gratification other than the legal remuneration for acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »