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.
Ramesh Chand and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1165Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals emerging from a common order. Since both the appeals arise from the same facts and rely on the same submissions hence both are being disposed of by the single order.2. In this case 11 pcs. of primary gold weighing 391.700 gms. and purity 231/2 cts. were admittedly recovered from Hakim Singh one of the appellants. The other appellant Ramesh Chander admitted that the said primary gold was given by him to his servant, Hakim Singh for custody.There is no denial of unauthorised acquisition, possession, custody/control of the gold seized by the department. In the Order-in-Original the gold was confiscated absolutely and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- were imposed on Shri Ramesh Chander and 500/- on Shri Hakim Singh Under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. When the party went up in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) the order of the lower authority was upheld. It is against this order that appellant is before us.3. Shri Panna Lal Kapoor, Advocate app...
Kumar Agencies (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC657Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government against the Order-in-Appeal mentioned above. On the setting up of this Tribunal, the revision application was transferred to it in terms of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. The appellant's claim for re-assessment of, (and consequential refund of duty paid on), a consignment of cartridge paper of substance above 85 gms/m2 under heading No. 48.01/21(3) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [as against classification under Heading No. 48.01/21(1) made by the Department), was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as the Appellate Collector. The latter, in his impugned order of 24-7-1982 has held that even if the grammage is not considered as the dividing criterion for differentiating drawing paper from off-set printing paper, so long as the goods are described in the invoice as "drawing paper"...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ashoka Cement Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT147TriDel
1. Aggrieved with the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 17.9.1982, the Department has filed this Appeal.2. Briefly stated, the Respondents manufacture steel castings falling under Tariff Item 26AA(v). On checking the accounts it was noticed that the Respondents manufactured GM bars in their factory and cleared them as if they were castings. But those bars are classifiable under T.I.26AA(ia). During the period October, 1973 to August, 1975 the Respondents had cleared 4,808.042 metric tonnes of GM bars. To a show cause notice issued they replied that the GM bars manufactured by them were nothing but steel castings. The Assistant Collector passed orders on 18.10.79 holding that the GM bars were classifiable under T.1.26(AA)(ia). He ordered differential duty of Rs. 6,02,240.73 be deposited and imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/-. An Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Collector, who initially dismissed the Appeal on the ground that adequate Court fee stamp had not been affixed.Subse...
Lights Carts (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC146; 1987(31)ELT25(Del)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is the Notification dated 1st of March, 1975 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, hereby exemption has been granted to certain categories of factories but not to the factory like the one which is run by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing agricultural implements. During the 12 months prior to 1st of March, 1975 the petitioner, during same period, had employed more than 49 workmen at its factory. According to the petitioner w.e.f. 17th of December, 1974, the number of workmen at this factory were not more than 38. It has been the admitted case that the factory of the petitioner works with the aid of power. 3. By the Finance Act of 1975 a new Tariff Item No. 68 was inserted in the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. The said item read as follows : '68. All other goods, not elsewhere specified, manufactured in a factory but excluding : (a) alcohol all sorts including alcoholic l...
Sundram Clayton Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT296TriDel
1. The revision application filed before the Govt. of India on transfer to the Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture among others brake assemblies, and parts thereof classifiable under Item 68. A show cause notice was issued on 28.10.80 alleging that the classification list filed by them were approved provisionally pending verification of the products and that it appeared that the various pistons and plungers classified by the company under TI68 were classifiable under TI 34A as "Pistons". The appellants were directed to show cause as to why duty on all past clearances of Pistons should not be collected.3. In their reply, the appellants stated that the term "pistons" had not been defined in the First Schedule and hence it should be given the popular meaning in its commercial sense.Quoting from Chambers Dictionary, Readers Digest Great Encyclopaedia Dictionary Vol.II, Newnes Family Dictionary and G.N. Garmonsway the Penguin English Dictionary, they urged...
Coronation Litho Works Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT62TriDel
1. The present appeal relates to the classification of "Step and Repeat Machine" imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. C-542 dated 21-8-1981. On importation the machine was classified under Heading 90.10 CTA. The appellants after clearing the goods claimed reclassification of the goods under Heading 84.34 and also claimed the classification of the goods under Tariff Item 68 for purposes of C.V.Duty. In appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirmed the assessment of basic customs duty under Heading 90.10 but allowed the appellant's claim for levy of additional duty under Tariff Item 68 of CET. The appellants then filed this appeal claiming classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 84.34 CTA.2. We heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants. Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that in three different appeals the Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that step and repeat machine should be classified under Heading 84.40 CTA. He cited the followin...
C. Bhagirathamma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT383
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) R.F.A. 60/73 is directed against the judgment dated 21/10/1972 determining the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 18.00per sq. yd. The Delhi Administration vide notification dated 13/11/1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894and the declaration dated 5/09/1964 under Section 6 of the Act notified the land for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No 1960 announced on 28/03/1967 acquiring the land in Village Kilokari in Khasra No.1127/328 measuring 2bighas. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land in dispute by placing it in Block A at the rate ofRs. 4,000.00 per bigha. Being aggrieved, the appellant made a petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation by the Court.(2) The reference was entrusted to the Court of Shri O. N. Vohra, Addl.District Judge, Delhi. The learned Additional District J...
Acc Babcock Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC27
1. ACC Babcock Ltd. had filed a revision application to the Additional Secretary, Government of India being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No.Cal-Cus-618/1982, dated 20th March, 1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The said revision application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. ACC Babcock Ltd., Durgapur had imported a consignment of 'Glove Valves' valued at Rs. 32,846/- CIF and claimed assessment thereof, under Heading 84.61 (2) as 'Isolating Valves'. In support of their contention that those were isolating valves they produced a photo copy of leaflet of forged steel parallel slide valves, forged steel High Pressure and High Temperature Parallel Slide Valves, Forged Steel Globe Stop and Check Valves as well as a sheet of Schedule No. VM/8ref-CED/AV3/CV, dated 25-9-1980 and stated that ail the categories of valves re...
Union of India Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC384
M.K. Chawla, J. 1. In the month of March, 1980 Shri Issar Das, son of late Shri Khub Chand, purchased a residential house bearing No. O-13, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, from Shri O. P. Sethi, resident of B-3/34- A,Lawrence Road, Delhi, for a consideration of Rs.1,31,500. A sum of Rs.75,000 was paid by means of a bank draft to the credit of Shri O. P. Sethi. The remaining amount of Rs.56,500 was paid to one shri B. B. Sawhney, general attorney of Shri O. P. Sethi. Thereafter, the sale deed was duly registered and possession delivered. 2. Somehow or other,the officers of the Foreign Exchange Enforcement Branch came to know of this transaction. On enquiry, the Department came to know that at the relevant time, Shri O. P. Sethi was a person resident outside india and as such had no authority to accept the sale consideration without the prior approval of the concerned authorities. On the basis of the investigations of the Directorate, Shri Issar Das served with the following show cause notic...
Union of India Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas46(Delhi); 32(1987)DLT278; 1987RLR270
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) In the month of March, 1980 Shr Issar Das son of late Shri Khub Chand purchased a residential house bearing No. O-13, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi from Shri O. P. Sethi, resident of B-3134-A Lawrence Road, Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 1,31,500.00 . A sum of Rs. 75,000.00 was paid by means of a bank draft to the credit of Shri O. P. Sethi. The remaining amount of Rs. 56,5001- was paid to one Shri B. B. Sawhney, general attorney of Shri O. P. Sethi. Thereafter the sale deed was duly registered and possession delivered. (2) Somehow or the other the officers of the Foreign Exchange Enforcement Branch, came to know of this transaction. On enquiry the department came to know that at the relevant time Shri 0. P. Sethi was a person resident outside India and as such had no authority to accept the sale consideration without the prior approval of the concerned authorities. On the basis of the investigations of the Directorate Shri Issar Das was served with the following Show...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »