Delhi Court May 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.
Gurcharan Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC611Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant Shri Gurcharan Singh Arora arrived at Delhi airport by Luftansa flight on 24-1-1980. He reported at counter No. 9 for customs clearance and declared the contents of a rexine bag, a large suitcase and a cardboard carton as luggage oroght by him. As examination of the goods was in progress another small attache case, found lying unclaimed near the conveyor belt, was brought by one of the officers and the appellant was questioned, about the ownership of the same. After having initially denied any connection with the said attache case he subsequently made a statement admitting that he had brought the same with him from Hong Kong and that the same had been handed over to him by one Munawar Ali Khan with instructions to leave the said box in the arrival hall itself at Delhi. When questioned about the contents the appellant stated that the said box contained only used personal effects and some spare parts. The appellant denied that he had the key of the box with him. When th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT437TriDel
1. On hearing both sides, we observe that the aluminium circles returned to the respondents factory under Rule 173L were not in Opened Packages. We find it recorded in the impugned order-in-appeal that the said circles had in the first instance been cleared in loose condition only and they were received back in the factory in the same condition.It is not a case where the goods were cleared in packages but were returned in opened packages. Secondly, we find that the exemption Notification 43/75-CE dated. 1-3-1975 fixed concessional rate of duty for aluminium circles for all producers. There does not appear to have been a further concessional rate for small scale sector or cottage sector of the industry. In the circumstances, we find that the provision of Rule 173L (3) (i) did not come in the way of respondents getting the refund under that Rule.2. In the consequence, we can find no fault with the impugned order-in-appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed....
Ms Swaran Sabharwal Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas652(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. The petitioner, Mr. Swaran Sabharwal, is the wife of Shri Ram Swarup. She maintains a savings bank account with the American express International Banking Corporation (respondent No. 4), the number of the account being 1656. Her grievance in the writ petition is that the above savings account, has been forzen at the instance of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that she has not even been supplied with a copy of the order freezin her account because of such a prohibitory order from respondent No. 2. 2. It is now common ground that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi (respondent No. 2), has issued to the manager of the American Express Bank, a letter dated October 31, 1985. The subject matter of the letter as set out in the letter reads thus : ``Regarding ceasing of an account in r/o Sh. Ram Swarup S/o ................. arrested in case FIR No. 216, dated September 23, 1985 under section 3, 4 and 5, 7 of the Official Secrets Act read with 120B, IP...
S.K. JaIn Vs. P. Subba Rao
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT334
C.L. Chaudbry, J.(1) This is the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 13,64,080.00 and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from releasing any of the pictures mentioned in the plaint, produced by them, in violation of the terms of the agreement between the parties. The allegations, as set up in the plaint, are that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of film distribution, exhibition and exploitation of motion pictures in the territory of Delhi and U.P. and they are controlling a number of cinema halls under hire agreements in the territory of Delhi and U.P. and other parts of the country. The plaintiff has even produced pictures and has also financed a number of pictures right from the stage of production. It is stated that defendant No. 1 Shri P. Suba Rao is the sole proprietor of P.S.R. Pictures and is carrying on production of pictures. Defendant No. 2 Shri P. Balaji is the sole proprietor of M/S Balaji Arts and is in the same trade. Def...
Raipur Alloys and Steel Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi433
Aggarwal, J.(1) This is a petition by Raipur Alloys and Steel Ltd. (Petitioner No. 1) and V. K. Sharma, a shareholder and executive director, of Petitioner No. 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a declaration or any other writ or writs or direction declaring that there was no concluded contract between the parties in respect of the tender No. IS-90 of 1984 and further that the petitioners are not liable to pay any money whatsoever to the respondents in respect of the alleged contract. The petitioners further claimed a declaration that the appointment of the arbitrator and his continuing the arbitration. proceedings is illegal and void and of no legal effect.(2) The relevant facts are that the respondents invited tenders for supply of Spring Steel Rounds sometime in September 1984- M/s. Raipur Wires & Steel Ltd.. P-48, Industrial Area, Raipur. M.P., of which the Petitioner No. I claims to be the successor submitted a tender. The Ministry of Railways (Government of Indi...
S. Venketraman Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes44; 1987(13)DRJ276
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The bare minimum facts required for determining the fate of the present writ petition are that the petitioner Shri S. Venkataraman is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. Computer and Video Tapes Pvt. Ltd. having a registered office at 93, Eldams Road, Madras-18. This Company is registered as a small scale industrial unit with the Department of Commerce. In the due course of the manufacturing process, the company placed an order with M/s. Manipal Ltd., Hong Kong, for the import of Video Magnetic tapes in pan-cakes. The goods were received in 11 consignments at Calcutta port. On 26th February, 1986, 11 sets of bill of entry were presented at the Calcutta Customs House by the Customs House Clearing Agent M/s. Harshadry N. Doshi on behalf of the Company. The declaration on the reverse of the bill of entry was signed by the petitioner, for and on behalf of the company. As per the declarations on the bills of entry clearance of the consignment was claimed under open...
Herdillia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT68TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported Tumene (Isopropyl Benzene) and claimed assessment under 27.10(1) of the CTA as against assessment done by the Revenue under Tariff Item 29.01/45(1) of the CTA. The goods imported were held to be chemically defined organic compound which are covered specifically under 29.01/45(1) as organic compound not elsewhere specified.3. The learned Advocate for the appellants, Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, stated that it is a covered matter and the Tribunal has ruled in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. The Atul Products Ltd., Bulsar and The Atic Industries Ltd., Valsad 1984 (20) ELT 147 (Tribunal) that the goods of the type imported by the appellants are assessable under Item 29.01/45(1) CTA. He conceded that the ratio of the judgment cited is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. It is seen from the judgment that in that case Naphelene whi...
Mohan and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC125
1. M/s. Mohan and Company, Madras had filed a Revision Application to the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order in Appeal No. 1502/79 (A.No. 341/ 74, C.No. V/4/341/79), dated 30-10-1979 passed by Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Mohan and Company are having L-4, Licence No. 4/75, and the appellants are manufacturer's of snuff. In terms of Notification No. 124/75, dated 12-5-1975 the rate of duty on snuff, whose value did not exceed Rs. 10/- per Kg., was 75 paise per Kg, and on snuff, whose value exceeded Rs. 10/- per Kg., was Rs. 2/-per Kg. The appellant had declared in AR-1, the value at Rs. 10/- per Kg. Besides this, the appellant had charged .02 paise per Kg....
Air India Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT504TriDel
1. Air India is aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. S/49-637/81R, dated 11th May, 1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Air India had imported 8 Aircraft Baggage Conveyors vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 1, dated 29-4-1980/1-5-1980. The same were assessed by the revenue under Heading 87.03 of CTA, 1975. The appellants had claimed re-assessment of the goods under Heading 84.22. The goods under reference Avialift APL-750 Mobile Baggage Conveyor was a versatile, man operated, self propelled vehicles providing rapid loading and unloading of aircraft passenger baggage and light cargo. The learned Assistant Collector had observed that Cranes, conveyor loader, mechanical loaders winches elevating platforms etc. are after mounted on lorries or chassis which are essentially complete and of the automobile type in that they contain all the essential automobile features, including travelling motor, gear box, controls for charging gear braki...
Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT343TriDel
1. The learned Counsel for M/s. Ashok Leyland Mr. Sridharan argued vehemently that there had not been any removal of goods from the Chapter X premises to their spare parts and other manufacturing division. The goods were all available in the factory's premises and it would be possible for them to segregate the Chapter X procedure goods from the non-Chapter X goods if sufficient time was given. He argued also that the goods had not been removed out of the factory and duty does not become payable on the Chapter X goods until they are removed from the factory. On this point alone the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras dated 17-12-1982 must be set aside. At the most there may have been certain confusion or mix-up because it is a very large factory and such mix-ups do occur from time to time in spite of their best efforts to prevent them; but it cannot be claimed as the Collector did that they had removed the goods in a deliberate manner, with the intention of evading duty. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »