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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Caprihans India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)(14)LC121Tri(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of the application by appellant-Collector of Central Excises, Bombay for condoning delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal.2. According to the particulars given in the Memo of Appeal, the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 25.3.1986. The appeal should have been filed to the Tribunal by 24.6.1986. The Memo of appeal dated 25.3.1987 was received in the Tribunal on 30.3.1987. The appeal is thus barred by limitation stipulated under Sub-section (3) of Section 35-B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by 9 months and 6 days. Excluding the postal delay of 5 days between 25.3.1987 to 30.3.1987, it is barred by limitation by 9 months.3. In the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri V.R. Gangurd, Deputy Collector of Central Excise Bombay-III, the officer authorised by the Collector to present appeal, it is submitted that the decision in the impugned order followed the ratio of Cegat decision in Bake...
Maharashtra State Textile Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT365TriDel
1. These two appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.B-325-326/NG-37-38/83, dated 14-2-1983. Since the appellants had to file the supplementary appeal in accordance with the rules and practice of this Tribunal, we condoned the delay in its presentation, after hearing the D.R. on this point.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants are a composite mill manufacturing cotton fabrics falling under Item No. 19(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. During the period from 1-12-1972 to 30-10-1977, they utilised cotton fabrics of grey coarse and medium varieties out of their own production as back grey cloth for industrial purposes in the process of printing. It appears that the appellants failed to pay handloom cess on such clearances of back grey cloth. The appellants had also filed a separate claim for refund of handloom cess paid during the period from 5-3-1978 to 27-9-1980 on the ground that cess was not payable when the fabrics were removed for internal consump...
Autolec Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT278TriDel
1. The appellants imported under Bill of Entry No. C-459/14-1-1980, dated 29-3-1980 the goods described as Water Pump Bearings. The goods were assessed to customs duty under Heading No. 84.62 (2). Subsequently they applied for refund of part of the duty, on the ground that the goods should be classified under Heading 84.63 or 84.10(3). The Assistant Collector observed that according to the refund application and catalogue the imported goods were water pumps spindle bearings with integral shafts. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim holding that the classification under 84.62(2) for basic customs duty.2. The Appellate Collector of Customs upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.3. We heard Shri Kunhikrishnan, Ld. Consultant for the appellants. Sh.Kunhikrishnan argued that a more specific heading should be preferred to less specific heading and therefore the goods are correctly classifiable under 84.63(1) as power transmission part. Alternatively he submitted that if Hea...
5 S Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC302
1. In obedience to Tribunal's order dated 7-5-1987 the Registry of the Tribunal issued notice dated 26-5-1987 to the appellants calling upon them to show cause why for non-compliance with Section 35F of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 'and Stay Order No. 224/85-C dated 20-12-1985 passed in the case of appeal filed by the appellants to the Tribunal be not dismissed. In response to this notice the appellants through their Counsel Shri I.C. Upadhyay have filed reply dated 27-7-1987. In this reply it is submitted that the entire period 4-4-1984 to 29-4-1984 relating to gate pass No. 19* dated 4-4-1984 to 301 dated 29-4-1984 amounting to Rs. 1,82,204.55 is covered by Notification No. 246/85-C.E.dated 6-1-1985. The reply further states that the respondent has no locus standi or jurisdiction to demand this differential duty in view of this notification issued under Section 11C of the Act. The reply further states "by virtue of above notification there is no liability cast on the appella...
Pragati Computers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT256TriDel
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is the classification of 19MB Winchester Drive and 40MB Winchester Drive which were imported under Bill of Entry No. AC 260 dated 13-11-1984. The goods were originally assessed to duty under heading 84.51(55)(2) and 85.10(27) along with benefit of a customs notification. Subsequently a demand was issued for differential duty on the ground that the goods were not eligible to the concessional rates under the Notification. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand and the appeal before the Appellate Collector failed. Hence the present appeal.2. Shri V. Laxmikumaran, Ld. Advocate submitted that the Tribunal has earlier considered the question of extending the benefit of the exemption Notification to Winchester Drive. As the goods in question are also Winchester Drive, the ratio of earlier judgment of the Tribunal should be applied and the benefit of Notification 237/83-Cus.should be extended to them. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR agreed ...
Duni Chand Vs. Ved Prakash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT311
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) This is a second appeal arising out of order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the landlord's application for warrant of possession under section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and setting aside order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing objections of the tenant against it. (2) The premises on the first floor of the building were let out to Ved Prakash for a period of four years by virtue of permission granted by the Controller under section 21 of the Act by an order made on 16th November 1973, on a joint application by the landlord and the tenant. It was stated in the application, inter alia, that the landlord was occupying another portion on the same floor; that the son of the landlord was abroad, and, he was not likely to return for the next about four years; so, the landlord did not require the premises in the rear portion of the building for that period; and that the tenant required the same for resident...
Ram Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT188
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of Shri O.P. Dwivedi, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 13.12.86 whereby Shri Ram Kumar, the present appellant, was held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to under go R.I. for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1lakh. In default of payment of fine, the accused-convict was further directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years. (2) The facts leading to the apprehension of the accused in brief are that on 18.5.86, Sub-Inspector Krishan Kumar, in charge Police Post Shakurbasti, Along with constables Ranbir Singh and Gurmail Singh, while on patrol duty, were present at Raja Park, Delhi. At about 2 P.M., the Sub inspector received a secret information that one person having smack in his possession will come from the side of Britania factory and would go towards fodder shop situated near the Park. Immediately on receipt of this information, the S.I. organized a rai...
Pandit Ram Saroop and anr. Vs. Balbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC358
S.B. Wad, J.1. This appeal is filed by the parents of deceased Naresh Kumar who died in a road accident on 3-5-1978. He boarded bus No. DLP-6059 at the General Store and was to get down at the Ordinance Depot, Shakurbasti, Delhi. The bus was plying on route No. 914 running from Punjabi Bagh to Nangloi. At the Ordinance Depot the bus did not stop and went ahead about ninety feet. When Naresh Kumar was getting down from the bus, the bus suddenly started. Naresh Kumar fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over him. He was taken to the hospital in the same bus by an eye witness, Som Dutt but he died on the way.2. Som Dutt, in his evidence, has fully supported this version of the accident. He has further stated that after running over the deceased the bus Driver tried to speed away but he Along with Azad Singh, PW-4, intercepted the bus and brought it to halt. He also stated that he took Naresh Kumar to the hospital in the same bus and informed the Police Station at Punjabi Bagh. PW 4...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. General Engg. Servicing Workshop
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT104TriDel
1. The department has filed this appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dt. 26-8-1983.2. The respondents entered into a contract for construction of Boiler house, Power house, Pump house etc. with M/s. Thandava Co-operative Sugars Ltd. They raised invoice No. 23 dated 31-3-1981 for Rs. 3,07,856.00 for roofing of A.C. sheeting and invoice No. 24 dated 31-3-1981 for Rs. 50,277.48 for foundation bolts utilised in the process of structural and the A.C. Sheeting. A show cause notice was issued on 29-7-1982 raising a demand for duty of Rs. 29,415.68. The Assistant Collector, Kakinada held that the goods were liable to duty under T.I. 68. The Appellate authority allowed the appeal.3. Shri J.N. Nigam, SDR submitted that the Appellate authority was not justified hi holding that the A.C. Sheeting of foundation bolts were not liable to duty. He urged that the definition of goods under the sale of goods Act would not apply to the term "exciseable goods" unde...
Niranjan Kaur Vs. New Delhi Hotels Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi332; ILR1987Delhi285
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This suit of the plaintiff Niranjan Kaur against the defendants is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,000.1-. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff purchased flat No. 5 on the second floor of the multi-storeyed building situate.d at premises No. 27, Barakhamba Road. New Delhi through her husband Narainder Singh Brar from M/s. New Delhi Hotels Limited defendant No. I and the payment of the price thereof was to be made in installments. Ail the installments except two which were due on 18-11-1972 had' been made. In respect of those two remaining Installments the plaintiff purchased demand draft No. DBY-598649 for Rs. 41,535.00 through Baldev Singh and Daulat Ram employees of her husband in her name from the Punjab National Bank, Muktasar Branch, Punjab payable by the Punjab National Bank, Regal Building, New Delhi branch and the same was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to defendant No. I towards the aforesaid two Installments at its address, M/s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »