Delhi Court July 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.
M.M. Khambhatwala Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC482
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Khambhatwala are the manufacturers of goods falling under Item 14F of the Central Excise Tariff under a Central Excise licence obtained for the purpose. The total clearance of the said goods during the year 1980-81 amounted to Rs. 14,88,268.00. In addition, they were also manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item 68 in their factory and were availing of the exemption from duty and licensing control under Notification No.105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 by virtue of the plant and machinery being less than Rs. 10 lakhs and value of clearance in respect of the goods falling under Item 68 being less than 80% of the exemption limit. Value of the goods falling under Tariff Item 68 cleared in 1980-81 amounted to Rs. 3,21,605.00. Besides, they were getting Agar-batti, amlapodi and dhup etc. falling under T.I. 68 manufactured on their behalf without the aid of power in the premises, other than their factory premises, and the total of such g...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Himachal Pradesh Horticulture
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC112
1. These are two appeals. Since the issue involved is the same, therefore, these are being disposed of by this single order.2. In these cases show cause notices were issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants cleared goods, classifiable under Item No.IB of Central Excise Tariff, packed in plastic barrels, but the value of the barrels was not included in the assessable value of the goods.As per the wordings of the show cause notice "Since unit container is an integral part of an item to be classified as prepared or preserved foods put up in unit container, its value has to be taken for account in the assessable value of the goods and chargeable to Central Excise duty".3. In their reply to the show cause notice appellants submitted that the goods in question viz. apple juice concentrate was in fact sold loose in durable PVC carboys, that the carboys were not filled with pre-determined quantity, and finally the carboys were not sold to the consumers but returned and duly accou...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT390; 1987RLR499
Aggarwal, J. (1) The controversy in this petition sine,', the remand of the case by the Supreme Court by its order dated 23/03/1987, stands very much narrowed down. The whole dispute up to the date of the remand of the case by the Supreme Court was whether khasi-a No. 352/2 Min. and part of khasra Nos. 563 and 564 situated in village Bijwasan are or are not located within the village extended Abadi (Firing). The case of the respondent Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd., the alleged builders, was that the aforesaid khasra numbers are located within the village extended abadi and, thereforee, are exempted from the building bye-laws and provisions of sections 332 to 336,section 342 and section 347 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957(hereinafter called 'the said Act'). The above exemption was claimed under the notification dated 24/08/1963 made effective from 19/11/1959 (annexure P-5atpage64 of the paper book). By means of the said notification the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by virt...
Narmita Kapur Vs. Anil Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT385; 1988RLR87
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of Criminal Producer Code, 1973 the petitioner Snit. Narinita Kapur prays for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents who are her husband and in-laws to produce her infant son Mohit aged Ii months and to hand over his custody to her. Anil Kapur respondent No. 1 is the husband of the petitioner, whereas respondents 2 and 3 Nand Kishore Kapur and Mrs. Janki Devi Kapur are respectively her father-in-law and mother-in-law. (2) The petitioner and respondent No. I were married to each other on 21-9-1985 at New Delhi and the minor child Mohit was born to them on 14-8-1986. It is asserted that she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondents on 19-4-1987 and not allowed to return. Thereafter on 28-5-1987 a petition for divorce was filed by the husband against the wife on 28-5-1987 under S. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty wh...
Sapna Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC355
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. On 12th October 1986 one Shri Kalit Mohan Aggarwal aged 29 years died as a result of an accident caused by a bus alleged to have been driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2--Delhi Transport Corporation. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of deceased Kalit Mohan Aggarwal, petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of deceased Kalit Mohan Aggarwal and petitioner No. 5 who is aged about 80 years is the father of the deceased Kalit Mohan Aggarwal.2. The petitioners filed an application for grant of compensation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 25th November 1986. Along with this application, the petitioners also filed an application under Section 92-A of the Act for grant of interim relief on principle of 'no fault liability'. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on that very day issued notice to the respondent returnable on 3rd March 1987, Being aggrieved by the long date given by the learned trial Judge the pe...
Mitter SaIn Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT182TriDel
1. The order under attack is C.No. V. (15) 33B off/Adj/1/86 dated nil passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. Mr. Lakshmikumaran, the learned Counsel for the producers, M/s.Mitter Jain Industries, said that the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that their goods flattened aluminium wires rods produced by re-drawing through dies have turned into strips and must pay duty as strips. The goods are of dimensions 10.6 mm x 4.2 mm and 6.1 mm x 3.8 mm and were cleared during October, 1985. The goods so cleared weighted 6746.800 kgs. and were valued at Rs. 188,910.40 on which duty amounted to Rs. 52,284.32.3. According to the learned Counsel, the wire rods which they buy from other people have their diameters first reduced and then in another operation, they are flattened. The result is flattened aluminium wire rods : they are not strips. He emphasised that they have no strip mill nor flat mill nor bar mill; their plant is only a re-drawing plant. The cross-sec...
Rajeev Woollen Mills Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi180; 1988(1)Crimes375; 33(1987)DLT50; 1988(15)ECC232; 1987(31)ELT639(Del)
Aggarwal, J.(1) There is two-fold challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the first challenge is to the Customs Public Notice No. 7/87 dated 3rd March 1987 which fixed certain guidelines in respect of the import of completely pre-mutilated woollen rags/synthetic rags. The said public notice provided that all consignments of woollen rags/synthetic rags which have already landed at Icd or which are shipped on or before 30th April 1987 will be allowed clearance after proper mutilation, if found necessary, in the manner specified in the notice. Any consignment that may be shipped after 30th April 1987 should satisfy the conditions detailed in the notice and no mutilation will be permitted for such consignments. The challenge to the above public notice was no the ground that it modified the provisions of the Import Policy which adversely affected the importers like the petitioner and the same is, thereforee, vocative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 301 of the...
Ariana Afghan Airlines Ltd. Vs. K.S. Sidhu and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ166Del
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is one of those cases where due to hypertechnical objectionshaving been raised by the management the progress of adjudication on an industrial dispute having been referred 15 years ago has been thwarted. It is indeed unfortunate that the workman has not had the satisfaction of seeing the terms of-reference being answered within a reasonable time due to no fault of his.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Shri Baldev Raj Bhanot was employed as a Traffic Assistant by the petitioner-company. With effect from March 17, 1972, his services were terminated.3. On 23rd March, 1972, Shri R.M.Roy, President of the Mercantile Employees' Association wrote to the petitioner-company protesting against the aforesaid termination. In this letter, it was stated that the services of Shri Bhanot have been terminated because he had been demanding bonus and insurance. Notice was served requiring the petitioner to reinstate the workman and also to pay him bonus of Rs. 2,516 and increme...
Bhavani Waste Cotton Spinning Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT727TriDel
1. This is an appeal against Order No. 41/81 dated nil passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on an application dated 17-11-1980 filed before the Board by M/s. Bhavani Waste Cotton Spinning Mill seeking Revision of Order-in-original dated 21-3-1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. As seen from the impugned order, the application was received in the Board's office on 27-11-1980. Since no appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act ("the Act", for short) had been filed by the assessee against the Collector's order, the Board dismissed the Revision Application holding that Section 35A providing for Revision Applications could not be used as a means to circumvent the statutory limitation of three months contained in Section 35 of the Act for preferment of appeals. The Board further observed that there had been no obvious mis-carriage of justice which needed to be corrected invoking Section 35A of the Act.2. We have heard Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate,...
Amar Dye-chem. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC433
1.In this case, appellants have sought to avail the benefit of Notification No. 178/77, dated 18th June, 1977 under which the Central Government has exempted all excisable goods falling under Tariff Items between 1 to 68 on which duty of excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Tariff Item 68 had been used from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the raw material falling under Tariff Item 68. Another Notification No. 295/77-CE was issued on 28th September, 1977 amending Notification No. 178/77 to the effect that the manufacturer should furnish to the proper officer a statement showing the quantity of the inputs used in the manufacture of every unit of the said goods.2. The appellant company applied for availing of the procedure under Rule 56A for purposes of getting the benefit of the above notifications and pending formal orders, commenced availing of proforma credit in terms of the prov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »