Delhi Court March 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.
Madan Lal Vs. Sudesh Kumari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi93; 1987(13)DRJ167
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This is an appeal by appellant Madan Lal (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'husband') against the judgment dated 8-12-1983 passed by Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the petition of the husband under Section 13(l)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended, seeking dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce, against his wife respondent No. 1 Sudesh Kumari (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'wife') was dismissed with costs.(2) Parties were married to each other on 10-2-1977 in accordance with Hindu Rites and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife in premises No. 915, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. On or about 10-8-77 the wife told the husband that she was not feeling well and thereafter on 12-8-1977 she complained of some pain in her abdomen and the husband immediately took her to Hindu Rao Hospital and got her admitted in the maternity ward where she gave birth to a male child at 12.35 A.M. on the night...
S.K. Sinha Vs. S.K. Shingal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes842; 32(1987)DLT91; 1988(15)ECC333; 1988(17)LC433(Delhi); 1987(30)ELT900(Del); 1987RLR231
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 135 of the Customs Act. (2) The petitioner stands charged of the aforesaid offence and in pursuance of an application moved by the petitioner under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for dropping the proceedings, the learned Magistrate declined to do so on the ground that after charge he has no power to do so. The learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing to say about this order and that is why he has approached this court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Although I am not sitting as a Revisional Court I must point out that the order of the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. is quite legal because there is no power vested in the trial court to discharge an accused person after being charged. (3) The facts of the present case are that the ad...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Vanaspati and General
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT227TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Oswal Vanaspati & General Industries (respondents) who manufacture vegetable product falling under Tariff Item 13 of the Central Excise Tariff, availed of benefit of Notification No. 230/72-C.E., dated 15.12.72 as amended in respect of indigenous cotton seed oil used by them. On a claim filed by them a rebate of Rs. 22,774.25 was allowed by the Assistant Collector.Subsequently, however, the departmental authorities came in possession of some of the documents which showed that the respondents instead of having used cotton seed oil m the manufacture of vanaspati, had, in fact, used Sarson oil. The Assistant Collector after issue of show cause notice and after giving an opportunity to the appellants held that charges were proved and confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 22,774.25 against the appell...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.M.D.C. Press (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC75
1. The facts of this case, briefly, stated, are that M/s. R.M.D.C.Press Pvt. Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "R.M.D.C." for brevity's sake) were engaged, at the material time, in the manufacture of Printed Cartons and were paying excise duty thereon under item No.68 of the First Schedule (hereinafter the 'CET') to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter, the 'ACT'). However, it appears that they represented to the authorities that printed cartons were products of the printing industry and, as such, were eligible for exemption from duty in terms of Central Excise notification No. 122/75 which exempted inter alia "all products of the printing industry including newspapers and printed periodicals". The Assistant Collector rejected the representation of R.M.D.C. by an order dated 5.7.1978. By this order, he observed that he was not in a position to conclude that R.M.D.C.'s goods were identical to those manufactured by certain other parties in whose cases the appellate...
Electrolytic Foils Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT376TriDel
1. M/s. Electrolytic Foils imported aluminium foil on which they paid customs duty, including additional, or countervailing, duty under item 27(c) of the Central Excise Tariff. The learned counsel for the appellants said there are no differences about payment of countervailing duty under item 27(c) of the Central Excise Tariff nor about the thickness of the foil, and we can find none in the records or in the arguments of the learned SDR. The disagreement between the two sides is over the assessment by the Central Excise department of the foils, a second time under the head 27(c) of the Central Excise Tariff for "Foils", because the goods were subjected to etching and other processing, leading the Appellate Collector to say: "hence, I am of the opinion that the etched aluminium foils, which are produced by the electro chemical processing of plain aluminium foils to make then suitable for specific electronic purposes would fall under Tariff Item 27(c) and not under T.I. 68 of the Centra...
Jyoti Prashad and Others, New Delhi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC343; 1987(29)ELT514(Del)
1. The petitioners who are related to each other but claim that they do not belong to the same family and live in different houses landed at Delhi Airport on 2nd May, 1983 by Air India Flight No. AI-301 and reported for clearance of customs in the Red Channel. Petitioner No. 1 who was standing first in the queue declared to the Customs Authorities that he was carrying one V.C.R. (National) with 300 other small items for his personal use and for the use of his family members. He was directed to pay a duty of Rs. 4000/- at the Cash Counter. He, accordingly deposited the duty at the Cash Counter. However, when the Customs Authorities checked petitioners 2 to 5, it was found that they were carrying three V.C.R.s (National), 12 blank video cassettes, 1 Kenica C-35 Camera and 2 Video Games. The Assistant Collector, Air Customs, Delhi Airport confiscated the said goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and valued the goods at Rs. 13,600/- and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 4,000/-...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prasad Films Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC500Tri(Delhi)
1. A Feature Film under the title 'Adavi Manushulu' had been produced in Telugu by M/s. P.S.R. Pictures. The same was processed in the laboratory of the respondents M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories.Subsequently, the same film was produced in Hindi under the name Purana Purush, in Tamil under the name Kattu Manithan and in Malayalam under the name Silayugathile Sundarigal. 20, U, 15 and 16 prints were taken of the Hindi, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam version respectively. The respondents paid duty on 19 of the 55 prints and cleared the remaining without payment of duty availing of benefit of duty exemption under notification No. 275/77, dated 12-8-1977. As the Department was of the view that since the 55 prints came from a common negative the action of the respondents in availing of the exemption for each language was not correct. A show cause notice dated 24-8-1978 was issued mentioning that duty was payable in respect of 43 of the prints, duty exemption being available for 12 only. Differ...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Girdharilal Kanchhedilal, Bidi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT364TriDel
1. In respect of duty paid on 8-3-1979 the respondents Girdharilal Kanchhedilal Bidi Manufacturers preferred a refund claim in respect of set off available to them amounting to Rs. 1,405.40 paise. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the same had been received in his office on 15-9-1979, more than six months after the date of the payment of duty. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Appellate Collector under order dated 24-8-1981. The Appellate Collector held that the refund claim was in time since it was governed by the period of limitation of three years prescribed under the common law. In this view he did not go into the contention raised by the respondents that they had preferred the refund claim to the Assistant Collector through the Inspector within five months from the date of payment of duty and hence the Assistant Collector was not right in considering their claim to have been preferred on the date the claim was received in his office....
TIn Plate Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC298Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta dated 26-5-1986. The appellants imported three consignments consisting of 532 Coils of Tin Imported Black Plate. The consignments were imported through the vessels s.s., Madhya Pradesh, s.s. Jalarashmi and s.s. Flaur. The goods were assessed free of duty in terms of Notification No. 243-Cus., dated 13-11-1981 as amended by Notification No. 215-Cus., dated 29-9-1982 and Notification 126-Cus., dated 13-5-1983. It is common case that the Three bills of entry were presented on 28-12-1983, 19-12-1983 and. 29-12-1983 respectively on a prior entry basis. They were duly classified and released on 28-12-1983, 19-12-1983 and 29-12-1983 free of duty in terms of the Notification aforesaid. But the vessels entered inwards finally on 5-1-1984, 10-1-1984 and 24-1-1984 respectively. It must be mentioned that the three vessels entered territorial waters and arrived in Bombay on 10-11-1983, 19-11-1983 and 27-11-1983 respective...
Garden Reach Ship Builders and Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT506TriDel
1. By the impugned order-in-original, the Collector demanded differential Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,07,668.95 from the appellants and imposed on them penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.00 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the charge of mis-declaration of value of the steel drums fabricated by the appellants for M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. The appellants applied to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for revision of the Collector's order under Section 35A. The Member of the Board passed a brief but reasoned order on the note sheet of the revision file on 26-8-1980 to the effect that there was no prima facie case for review and rejected the appellants' application. The Senior Technical Officer of the Board communicated the Board's order in a non-speaking manner to the appellants on 28-8-1980. Thereupon, the appellants filed the instant revision application before the Central Government under the then Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The said revision...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »