Delhi Court September 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.
Bedi and Bedi (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC272
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured Fluid Bed Tea Drier (FBD) assessable under T.I. 68 GET and they were found to have cleared these machines without payment of duty after filing the declaration under notification No. 111/78. They were alleged to have cleared goods valued at Rs. 30 lakhs and were charged with having evaded payment of duty on the goods cleared to the extent of Rs. 13,45,486.13. Clearance of some of the machines without payment of duty was made by them in the name of two trading companies - M/s. B & B Tea Processing Systems Private Limited and M/s. B & B (Agents) Private Limited, situated in the same premises as the appellants unit. These two concerns did not own any factory and obviously all the manufacturing activity was being done in the factory of the appellants.These companies were only found to be dummies of the appellants set up for the purpose...
Atam Prakash and Sons (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD477(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the assessee who are similarly placed and raise identical questions. They were argued together by the same counsel and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us. The relevant facts are that the two assessees along with several others are co-owners of property No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.The property consisted of land measuring 3850 sq. mts. which was granted to their predecessor Shri Kamal Narain Singh by the Government of India on perpetual lease vide deed dated 9th October, 1936. The lessee had raised a residential bungalow over the said land. The assessee M/s. Atam Prakash & Sons, HUF, had 1/6th share in the said property, The other assessee Shri Om Prakash had 1/18th share thereof.3. The Government of India declared the area where this property was situate to be a commercial area permitting t...
Angoori Devi and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi305
N.C. Kochhar, J. (1) Smt. Angoori Devi, Miss Kanta, Miss Manju, Miss Shakuntla, Miss Anita, Master Prem Paul, Master Kishan, Master Mahesh and Master Sudama (hereinafter jointly referred as plaintiffs and severally as plaintiffs No. 1 to 9 respectively), had filed an application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue as indigent persons to claim a sum ofRs. I lakh by way of compensation from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the defendant). The said application was allowed vide order dated 23rd March, 1978 passed by P. S. Safeer, J. . (2) The case set up in the plaint is as under : The Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU)-of the defendant had been having a wooden shack at the Madras Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and the said shack had been in , very bad shape. Lots of loose wires, iron pipes and other junk had been collected at the top and around the shack by the DESU. A temporary electric connection by means of loose and necked wires had been taken in t...
Sat Pal Vs. Raj Kaushalya and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT262
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This appeal has been brought against order dated December 13, 1984, of Shri Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, by which he had dismissed the objection petition filed by the appellant as being not maintainable inasmuch as the execution application had been withdrawn by the decree holder. (2) The facts, in brief, are that the father of the appellant had entered into an agreement of sale with the decree holder-respondent on the 6th June 1979 under which he agreed to sell house No. E-153, Outram Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 20,000.00 . It was mentioned in the agreement that under the scheme of the government the said house has to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and in lieu of the said house, vendor was to be given possession of a plot No. 630, Dr. Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi and he would hand over the possession of the said plot to the vendee on execution and the registration of the sale-deed. On failure on the part of the ven...
Pravesh Kumar Ahluwalia Vs. the Suprintendent, Central Jail and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes863; 33(1987)DLT171
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) We have heard counsel for the parties today. We proceed to judgment. (2) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was taken from his residence on 2nd August, 1987 by the officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi and the West Bengal Police for investigating a case which had teen registered under Section 22/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'Act') but was formally produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 4th August, 1987 at her residence in the evening at about 8.00 P.M. when he was remanded to Police custody of West Bengal Police up to 14th August, 1987. It is not necessary to notice the details of the prosecution case which was registered by the West Bengal Police. It appears that after 14th August, 1987 the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody in the cases against him from time to time till 7th September, 1987. It further appears that while in Police custody of West Bengal Po...
international Linkers (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT491TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignment of self-adhesive tapes and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 342/76-Cus. as amended. The goods were assessed by the Customs House under Heading 39.01/06 of the CTA. 1975 without allowing the benefit of the exemption notification. An appeal filed against the assessment was rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order. Hence this appeal. "Artificial resins and basic material, Cellulose, Esters and Ethers and articles thereof are classifiable under Chapter 39 of CTA'75. Serial No. 6 of the exemption notification also pertains to these goods. Now I find that the appellants have not placed on record, any evidence to show that Self-Adhesive Tapes imported by them are products of polymerisation or co-polymerisation. This is very material since the grant of exemption depends thereupon. The appellants could have produced this evidence at the time of personal hearing which they failed to do so. In their appeal memo...
Desco Paints Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT766TriDel
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants filed a refund claim on 4-7-1977 for the period from 1-8-1974 to 31-3-1976 claiming refund of Rs. 25,300.66 on the ground that their production of paints and varnishes during the period did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs in each year and as such they were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 116/74-C.E. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta VIII Division vide his letter No. C.No./V-14(15)8-VIII/73/8357, dated 23-8-1977 intimated to the appellants as follows :- "Please refer to your letter No. Nil dated 26-7-1977 claiming for refund of duty. 2. Your claim for refund of duty relates to the period 1-8-1974 to 31-3-1975 and 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1976 whereas you expressed your desire to prefer a claim for refund of duty as late as on 4-7-1977. I may inform you that the claim will be time-barred under Rule II of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." By another letter No. C.No.V/14(15)(8)/VIII/73/11493 dated 1-12-1977 the Assis...
Collector of Customs Vs. Sylvester and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC257
1. The proceedings in the captioned appeal were originally initiated as a review proceeding by the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, and have been transferred to this Tribunal on statutory transfer for disposal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported a machine described as lacquer curtain coating machine. This machine, as seen from the record, was intended for coating or impregnating different materials with lacquers of various varieties including nitro-cellulose lacquers and acid hardening lacquers. The goods were assessed under 84.59(1) against the appellants claim for assessment under 84.59(2) which carries a lower rate of duty. The original authority ruled against the respondents but the Collector (Appeals) allowed the respondents appeal and ordered refund. It is against this order of the Collector (Appeals) that the review proceedings under Section 131 of the Customs Act were drawn.3. Learned SDR for the appellant-Collector plead...
Qualipack Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC320
1. None appears on behalf of the appellants who have requested that the matter may be decided on merits.3. The department's case is that appellants wrongly availed exemption under Notification 46/71, as amended, to which they were not entitled.Holding that the assessee has deliberately suppressed facts with a view to avail of the exemption to which they were not entitled, the Additional Collector of Central Excise rejected the plea of time bar and demanded the duty of Rs. 59,167.68 on the goods cleared and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.4. We observe from the record of personal hearing granted by the Additional Collector that appellants had admitted that they had used only white pulp board in the manufacture of corrugated board. They did not use duplex board or bituminised paper or corrugating medium of 65 gms. or above. Further they offered to pay the duty of 5% on the corrugated board manufactured and cleared by them.5. In their appeal before us, however, appellants have take...
Collector of Customs Vs. Sylvester and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC835Tri(Delhi)
1. The proceedings in the captioned appeal were originally initiated as a review proceeding by the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, and have been transferred to this Tribunal on statutory transfer for disposal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported a machine described as Lacquer Curtain Coating Machine. This machine, as seen from the record, was intended for coating or impregnating different materials with lacquers of various varieties including nitro-cellulose lacquers and acid hardening lacquers. The goods were assessed under 84.59(1) against the appellants' claim for assessment under 84.59(2) which carries a lower rate of duty. The original authority ruled against the respondents but the Collector (Appeals) allowed the respondents appeal and ordered refund. It is against this order of the Collector (Appeals) that the review proceedings under Section 131 of the Customs Act were drawn.3. Learned SDR for the Appellant Collector plea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »