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.
Pieco Electronics and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT102aTriDel
1. The Appellants are not represented but by a letter dated 29-4-1987 they requested for a decision in the matter on the basis of documents submitted by them. Therefore, we heard Sh. D.K. Saha, the Ld. JDR, for the Respondents and perused the papers filed by the Appellants.2. Shri Saha submitted that in the relevant Bill of Entry the Appellants declared that the imported goods were for Intercoms and are not interchangeable with Wireless Receivers. He pointed out that the goods were assessed as declared by the Appellants and they were cleared for home consumption from Customs control. The Appellants' plea, at a later stage that the goods were meant for Wireless Receiver cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of Sections 149 and 147 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Shri Saha further submitted that the Karnataka High Court held that a notification issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be made applicable to imported goods to calculate the additional duty of Customs levia...
Smt. Kewati Devi JaIn Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD11(Delhi)
Legal documents amend in the above context means `correct an error' and expression `amend the order' would mean `correct the order' in the order under section 154.Section 154 extends to amendment or correction of order to eliminate mistake apparent on record. This may extend to whole order or to a part of it.In the order under section 154 the power to rectify the orders is to be exercised by correcting the error in the order and the correction must, therefore, extend to the elimination of the error. The assessing officer will thus be able to amend or correct the order to the extent to which the correction is necessary for rectification of the error and such correction may extend either to the whole of the order or only to a part of it.Blue Star Engg. Co. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 283 (Bom) relied.1. This is assessee's appeal against the order dated 30-3-1985 of the learned Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, Meerut Range, Meerut for the Assessment year 1982-83.2. The assessee ...
Ranjit Singh and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT58
ORDER1. By this order, I propose to dispose of Cr. Writ No. 66/87 - Shri Ranjit Singh v. Union of India and others and Cr. Writ No. 83/87 - Shri Ganga Ram Kapoor v. Union of India and others, as both arise out of and relate to the same incident. The order of detention dated 18-11-1985 concerns both the petitioners. The detenus have failed the petitions for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus praying for quashing of the order of their detention dt. 18-11-1985, passed by respondent No. 2 Shri K. K. Tiwari, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). The grounds of challenge in both the petitions are the same though there is a slight change in the date of their respective detention and the service of grounds of detention. 2. The material facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petitions in brief are that at about 0215 hrs. on 8th Novemb...
Usha Sales Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aruna Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi103
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In this suit the plaintiffs seek the following reliefs against the defendants in respect of the itemises in dispute comprising the first floor premises of* the house known as 99-Anand Lok, New Delhi and the second floor in the annexe premises and the car parking space on the ground floor, therein :(a) restraining defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs their employees representatives, and/or causing obstruction in any manner whatsoever, from going to and using the 1st floor premises and the Car Park space at ground floor, of the house known as 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (B)restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs, in respect of the premises, given to plaintiff No. 1 on rent, in house No. 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (C)to pass a decree in the sum) of Rs. 1,04,000 as compensation for damages caused to the plaintiff. (D)a decree for further damages at the rate of Rs. 3100 per month and Rs. 500 per day from 5-5-1982 till the date th...
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT771TriDel
1. The Revision Application filed by the Appellants before the Government of India on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an Appeal. The Revision was filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-5-79 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. A show cause notice was issued on 29-1-70 to the Appellants. The Appellants manufacture steel and steel products at Jamshedpur and in the course of manufacture of the said products some scraps arise. They have removed 2,561 Metric Tonnes of industrial scrap assessable at Rs. 125/-per Metric Tonne and 697.96 Metric Tonnes of industrial scrap assessable at Rs. 135/- per Metric Tonne between the period from March, 1969 to August, 1969. The Appellants had paid lesser duty under T.I.26. The variety of the scrap despatched by them to M/s. TAYO conform to the definition of re-rollable/Industrial Scrap as has been defined in the Iron and Steel Control Price , Circular 1959. At the initial stages the Appellants were classifyin...
Harshit Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT272TriDel
1. M/s. Harshit Exports (the appellants) imported at Bombay a parcel containing 10,487.10 carats of what was declared to the Customs authorities as "rough diamonds, uncut, unset, unworked", valued at Rs. 19,07,275/-. Out of this, lot No. 5 covered by invoice No. Exp-R85/197, dated 20-12-1985, was found by the Customs authorities to contain drilled diamonds (which, according to the authorities, were "worked" diamonds), weighing 640,82 carats valued at Rs, 1,22,907/-. The Customs authorities alleged that this lot of diamonds required a specific import licence for their import and clearance and further that there was mis-declaration of the goods inasmuch as rough diamonds were free of duty under Heading No. 71.02 (2) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 whereas worked diamonds were chargeable to duty at 60% ad valorem plus 40% ad valorem under Heading No. 71.02 (5) of the said Schedule. The appellants contended that the drilled diamonds were defective ab _initio and were...
Achla Kakkar Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC177; 1987(31)ELT20(Del)
1. M/s Rene Diffusion Pvt. Ltd. is a Company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of garments. Shri Arun Kakkar is the Managing Director of the Company. On 5-4-1982, the Government of India issued a notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 whereby the goods specified in the 1st Schedule thereto and imported against an Advance license issued under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, were exempted from customs duty and the whole of the additional duty, livable thereon under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, provided :- (i) the materials in question are required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of goods for execution of one or more export orders, or (ii) the materials which are for replenishment of materials used in manufacture of goods in execution of one or more export orders. The said notification also laid down certain conditions, for claiming exemption. 2. In pursuance to this scheme the petitioner secured the requisite Advance licenses, and importing 100% p...
Achla Kakkar Vs. Union Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1896
ORDERM.K. Chawla, J.1. M/s. Rane: Diffusion Pvt. Ltd. is a Company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of garments. Shri Arun Kakkar is the Managing Director of the Company. On 5-4-1982, the Government of India issued a notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 whereby the goods specified in the 1st Schedule thereto and imported against an Advance license issued: under the Imports (Control) Orders, 1955, were exempted from customs duty and the whole of the additional duty, livable thereon under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, provided:(i) the materials in question are required to be imported for the purpose of manufacture of goods for execution of one or more export orders, or(ii) the materials which are for replenishment of materials used in manufacture of goods exported in execution of one or more export orders.The said notification also laid down certain conditions, for claiming exemption.2. In pursuance to this scheme the petitioner secured the requisite Advance lice...
S/Shri Goverdban Dass, Gop Chand Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)(14)LC495Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that as a result of search on 31.7.1984 of the residential premises of Shri Goverdhan Dass Keshwani, appellant No. 1, goods of foreign origin were recovered. On being asked by the Customs Officers, to produce proof of the lawful import, possession etc. of the goods so recovered, Shri Keshwani showed the following documents.----------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Description Documents Name of the party----------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Customs Baggage Receipt No. 137901 dated Prakash Dinna Nath ji 30.7.1984, Delhi Air Port. ke Gali, Passport No. T-999757.5. Customs Baggage Receipt No. 137909 dated Gope Chand, 188, Fr- 30.7.1984, Delhi Air Port. ontier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Passport7. Baggage Landing Certificate No. 35459 dated Goverdhan Dass 30.7.1984, Delhi Air Port. Passport No. 104655.----------------------------------------------------------------------------...
Goel Jewellers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC716Tri(Delhi)
1. The aforesaid reference application raises the following three questions of law :- (i) As to whether the Tribunal is correct in law in imposing a penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, for not making entries in the Register of Repairs in respect of the Gold ornaments weighing 276.500 gms. (ii) As to whether the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the penalty imposed on the applicant firm for non-maintenance of Registers, in view of the Supreme Court 3udgment in the case of Manik Chand Paul and Others, 1984(18) ELT 185 (S.C.) Supreme Court, page 1249? (iii) As to whether the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the imposition of penalty on the ground of non-writing of the registers up-to-date, when the original authority i.e. learned Collector had not imposed the penalty on this ground? 2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid questions raised by the applicant it is necessary to set out in brief the facts of the case which are as follows :- On 5-5-1985, Prev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »