Delhi Court April 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 C. Ex. Vs. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT487TriDel
1. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is common they were heard together.2. The issue is whether cotton chindies during the relevant period were liable for payment of handloom cess or whether they were exempt from the same by virtue of Notification 4/24/73-TEX - i, dated 4-8-1973 and 15012/4/72 TEX - iv, dated 14-2-1975. In both matters the Assistant Collectors had held that cess was payable but the Appellate Collectors had held to the contrary.3. Excise appeal No. 1437/81 relates to notice dated 30-12-1981 issued by the Central Govt. under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act for setting aside the order-in-appeal dated 6-7-1981 in the case of M/S. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd. Excise Appeal No. 48/83-D is an appeal directly preferred to this Tribunal against order in-appeal dated 21-7-1982 in the case of M/s. Anglo French Textiles Ltd. 4. M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd. was represented by Shri Vijaya Raghavan, Regional Manager. M/s. Anglo French Textiles Ltd. di...
Indian Telephone Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC919Tri(Delhi)
1. A common issue is involved in these 332 appeals. They arise out of one consolidated order-in-appeal and relate to the same appellants.This combined order will dispose of ail of them.2. The appellants are an industrial undertaking in the Public Sector.They are engaged in manufacture and sale of telecommunication equipment. They have a Research and Development Unit/Lab, as a part of their undertaking. They imported certain articles which, they claimed, were being used in the said R&D Unit. The dispute in these appeals is whether they were entitled to import the said articles free of customs duty under exemption notification No. 70/81-Customs, dated 26-3-1981. "G.S.R. 208(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Banking No. 211 - Customs, dated the 2nd August, 1976, the Central Government, being satisfied that it ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. S.S. Miranda Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC23
1. The respondents M/s. S.S. Miranda Ltd. claimed before the Assistant Collector that the products (tool bits) manufactured by them were to be classified under TI 68 CET. Under his order dated 31-8-1981 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Bombay held that the proper classification was under TI 51 A(iii) CET. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise Bombay under his order dated 7-10-1981. The Appellate Collector referred to an earlier order passed by him on 22-7-1981 in an appeal filed by ,M/s. Indian Tools Manufacturing Ltd. which order, according to him, dealt with similar goods. Following the decision in the earlier appeal he classified the goods manufactured by the respondents also under TI 68 CET. The Central Government was of the view that the said order of the Appellate Collector was not proper, legal and correct. Notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act was accordingly issued directing the respondents to sho...
Eros Metal Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT361TriDel
1. Show cause notice dated 23-8-1982 was issued by the Asstt. Collector (Technical) of the Central Excise Headquarters Office, Nagpur to the appellants M/s. Eros Metal Works (P) Ltd. alleging contraventions of various provisions of law relating to payment of excise duty. The substance of the allegations was that the appellants, over a course of years, were clearing, without payment of duty, steel furniture manufactured by them with the aid of power under the guise that these had been manufactured without the aid of power and were therefore not liable for payment of excise duty. It was further alleged that several amounts were mentioned in the bills as towards packing, forwarding and installation charges but that the same had not been disclosed in the gate passes. It was also alleged that no separate production records were being kept for the power and non-power sections in order to screen the production in the power unit from demand from payment of excise duty. Statements of various p...
Ram Parkash Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC889Tri(Delhi)
1. Heard Shri K.R. Mehta, Consultant and Shri Jaswant Singh, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri S. Krishnamurti, SDR for the department.2. Shri Mehta emphasizes that appellant is a certified goldsmith for more than 20 years. It is submitted that the entire case has been handled by the department in a strange manner. The show cause notice issued refers to Defence of India Rules, 1962, which were abrogated in 1968. The learned consultant, however, conceded that this would not vitiate the show cause notice. It is further submitted that at the time of seizure, statements were recorded under threat and intimidation.This has been stated by the witnesses also. In fact, the witnesses have denied that the statements were recorded in their presence.3. It is further pointed out in defence that G.S. 13 register was duly maintained by the appellants. At the time of the visit of the Central Excise Officers, it was not produced because the Munim was working out the job charges for Income-tax purp...
Mani Ram (Huf) Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD187(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A) dated 11-9-1985 relating to asstt, year 1982-83. Before we project the grievance of the party in appeal, we think it essential to bring the facts of the case into focus. The facts are as under.2. The assessee is a HUF known as M/s. Mani Ram, HUF. It consists of only one male member Shri Mani Ram. The other member of the family is his wife, Smt. Mee Kaur. The HUF has been assessed to income-tax since asstt. year 1980-81. On 9th day of January, 1982 a memorandum of partition was drawn on a stamp paper of Rs. 2 between Shri Mani Ram and Smt. Mee Kaur. As per this memorandum, which appears at pages 14 to 18 of the paper book, on that date, the said HUF had properties worth Rs. 5,73,707, which, inter alia, included cash and bank balances amounting to more than Rs. 5 lakhs. The memorandum records that the parties to the memorandum agreed for the division of the HUF properties into separate lots in accordance with th...
Joginder Pal Vs. Krishan Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT63; 1987(13)DRJ223
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of RSAs. Nos. 36 and 127 of 1982. The respondent Krishan Lal had instituted a suit impleading N.D.M.C. as the defendant and Joginder Pal as the second defendant. Against N.D.M.C. the relief sought was for declaration that the cancellation of stall No. 67 Municipal Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi of which he was the allottee was mala fide and without jurisdiction, and against the second defendant he sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over peaceful possession of the shop to him. The suit was decreed against both the defendants. Both the defendants preferred separate appeals and the learned Add). District Judge dismissed both the appeals. During the pendency of the appeals before the Additional District Judge defendant Joginder Pal had filed two applications one under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code for additional evidence. Along with the...
MukhtiaruddIn Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT238
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District served a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, on the petitioner to show cause why he be not externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of 2 years, on the allegations that since 1975, he is engaged in the commission of illegal acts and offences against body, riot and breach of peace which are causing or calculating to cause alarm, danger or harm to the persons or their property ; that he is involved in 5 cases under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code; that his activities are great menace to the society at large ; and that he is so desperate and dangerous which renders his being at large in the Union Territory of Delhi or any part there of hazardous to the community.(2) The petitioner sent the reply to the show cause notice denying theallegations. He also led evidence in support of his innocence and false implication in the cases mentioned in the said notice. S...
National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT288TriDel
1. In this case the refund claim filed by the appellants on 24-1-1980 for an amount of Rs. 1,704.83 covering the period from 4-8-1979 to 24-7-1979 was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as time barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeal preferred by them was also ' rejected by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) by the impugned order. Before the lower authorities the appellants stated that the duty was paid by them under protest and hence the time limit of six months prescribed in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules would not apply. Their contention was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that there was no letter of protest submitted by the appellants to the department. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order, has observed after going through the gate passes that the reasons for paying the duty under protest is not mentioned on the gate passes. He has also observed that there is no dispute that the written protest wa...
Mohan Lal Goela Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT23
S.S. Chadba, J.(1) This batch of Regular First Appeals seek the enhancement of the compinsation as determined by various Courts of Additional District Judges on references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the acquisition of land in village Rajpur Chhawni. (2) The Delhi Administration by notification dated November 13, 1959, issued under Section 4 of the Act, notified land including the land in the revenue estate of Rajpur Chhawni acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for the Planned development of Delhi. Areas were being acquired out of this notification from time to time as and when the necessity arose after the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. A declaration under Section 6 was made by publication of a notification dated October 26, 1961. Most of the cases in this batch are covered by Award No. 1290 dated March 14, 1962. R.F.A 197 of 1978 arises out of the Award No 2005 though the date of Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »