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.
Narayan Singh and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT272TriDel
1. The appellants imported goods described as "Furnace parts-Conveyor belts" under a Bill of Entry No. HD 1241, dated 19-5-1980. The goods were assessed by Customs under Heading 73.33/40. The appellants after clearing the goods applied for the refund on the ground that the goods were eligible to re-classification under Heading No. 84.22 on the ground that the Conveyor Belts were used as parts in Industrial Furnaces. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim observing that the goods were inspected at the time of assessment and that from the catalogue produced it was not possible to correlate the same with the imported goods. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal on the ground that the goods imported were only Conveyor Belts not combining with other goods to form machinery parts. Hence this appeal.2. We heard Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant. He argued that the imported goods are parts of a furnace and were Conveyor Belts which pass through the furnace carrying articles for tempering, har...
Semi-conductors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT236TriDel
1. Fifteen applications for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals were heard. Shri D.K. Saha, JDR does not oppose the condonation, in the circumstances. The delay in filing these appeals is condoned.2. We heard both sides. Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant submitted that the present matters are squarely covered by the earlier orders of the Tribunal namely - Order No. 1044 to 1057/86-B2 1987 (28) E.L.T. (93) Tribunal.3. In all these appeals Silicon Diffused Chips were imported. The question that arises in all these appeals is whether Silicon Diffused Chips are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 172/77-Cus. There is no dispute regarding the basic classification of the chips which was done under Heading 85.18/27(1) CTA.4. Shri Saha, JDR agreed that in all the present appeals the same issue arises as was decided in Keltron Power Devices Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Cochin cited by the Ld. Consultant for the Appellants. We have perused the documents and also went to the...
Batliboi and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC833Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported "Horizontal Boring and Milling Machines Model. Skada W200 GNR with accessories" under Bill of Entry No.2270/17, dated 15th March, 1979. There is no dispute about the classification of the goods under Heading 84.45/48. The appellants claim the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus. The Asstt. Collector refused to extend the same to the imported goods on the ground that this Notification at the relevant time covered only "Floor & Table type Horizontal Boring machine above 160 mm spindle dia" and not "Boring and Milling machine" which was imported. The Asstt. Collector held that the imported unit was basically "Milling and Boring Machine" which is different from a 'Boring Machine'.2. The Appellate Collector upheld the order taking into consideration the description given in the catalogue. He took note of such description to the effect that the imported unit was primarily suitable for precision and high efficient milling, drilling and boring operations. Henc...
Metores Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC325
1. The appellants are manufacturers of fabricated mica falling under Item -68 of the Central Excise Tariff. By Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977, the goods falling under Item 68 of C.E.T. manufactured without the aid of power were wholly exempted from Central Excise duty.During the period from 21-3-1982 to 17-4-1982 the appellants used a lighted table for checking the fabricated mica. The surface of the table was semi-transparent. The table was fitted with tube light. Mica was spread over the table and light passed through the mica films.Collector of Central Excise held that checking the mica films was a part of manufacturing process in relation to manufacture of fabricated mica and since power was used for this part of the process of manufacturing during the period 21-3-1982 to 17-4-1982 the benefit of exemption Notification 179/77-C.E. was not admissible to the goods in question manufactured during that period. He, therefore, held that the appellants were liable to pay d...
V. Sagar Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD535(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals by the assessee, a resident individual and the Revenue, involving assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 for which the respective valuation dates are 30-6-1978 and 30-6-1979.2. In WTA No. 417/Del/87, which involves assessment year 1979-80, the assessee is aggrieved on the following two counts: (i) Treatment of refund relating to assessment year 1977-78 as net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80; and (ii) Taking the value of Kanchanjunga flat in the net wealth of the assessee.3. For the assessment year 1980-81, i.e., in WTA No. 418/Del/87, the sole grievance revolves around the valuation of Kanchanjunga flat.4. The Revenue in its WTA Nos. 423 & 424/Del/87 has taken the following two common grounds in relation to both the assessment years under appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CWT (A) erred in treating the market value of the books as exempt under Section 5(1)(xii) of the WT Act, 1957. On the facts and...
Kimti Lal Kathuria and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ254Del
Bahri, J. 1. These two writ petitions involve certain common questions of law and it would be convenient to decide both of them together by this judgment. Both these writ petitions involve the validity of prescribing certain additional experience on the part of officials who are somewhat educationally inferior vis-a-vis the other officials who are educationally a little bit better equipped. Whether such differential in the two sets of officials can be upheld as valid and not vocative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is the question. 2. In Civil Writ No. 2132/84 the petitioners are Junior Engineers in the service of Delhi Development Authority-respondent No. 1 and they can be termed as 'diploma-holders' while respondents 2 to 96 are presently working as Assistant Engineers in the service of respondent I having been promoted from the rank of Junior Engineer and they having possessed the degree of civil engineering can be termed as 'degree-holders'. 3. The facts in brief a...
Om Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT176
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) 'IT is trite law that when the evidence against an accused person, particularly, when he is charged with a grave offence like a murder, consists only of circumstances and not direct oral evidence, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis, the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable m(2) In the present case, it is a common ground that there is no direct evidence implicating the appellant. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. Ordinarily, circumstantial evidence means a combination of facts creating a net without there being any tear through which the accused can escape. Whether the circumstantial evidence establishes the guilt of accused is the question that requires going into. (3) In order to dispose of the appeal, few facts need mentioning. PW-25 Rajinder Singh is working as a sepoy in the 6th Jat Battalion, Udhampur. In the mon...
Malabar Dyeing and Finishing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC190
1. Heard Shri N. Ramanathan, consultant, on behalf of the appellants' and Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR, on behalf of the department.2. There were two issues before the lower authorities; one was regarding the appellant's liability to duty, and the other was regarding the appellant's claim that the demand of duty was barred by limitation as, at best, duty could be demanded only for 6 months period and not for 5 years. Now before us Shri Ramanathan admits that so far as the issue of liability to duty is concerned this has been decided against him in view of the ratio of Cegat decision in the case of Siddeswari Cotton Mills Ltd., Calcutta & Jatia Cotton Mills Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta .Shri Ramanathan submits that he is, therefore, before the Tribunal only on the issue of time bar.3. The learned consultant emphasises that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to evade duty and there is no allegation of fraud. The department was aware of the facts...
Sanjeev Mody Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi530
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged his detention order dated 30th of March 1987 passed by Mr. Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended. This detention order was made with a view to preventing the detenu Sanjeev Mody from smuggling goods and is based on the incident dated 22-2-1987 when the petitioner was allegedly brought back from the aircraft of the British Airliner and was found carrying Indian currency amounting to Rs. 21,40,000, which he was allegedly trying to smuggle out of the country. (2) The detention order is being challenged on a variety of grounds. Mr. Mittal, arguing the case of the petitioner urged that there has been unexplained and avoidable delay in the consideration of the representation of the petitioner, which the petitioner had made on 17th of July, 1987 against the order of detention. According to him the represen...
V. Aboobacker Vs. the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC183; ILR1987Delhi534
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner is challenging his detention pursuant to a detention order dated 21-5-1986 passed by Delhi Administration against the petitioner under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act; 1974. The detention order was made with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling gold into India. This was followed by a declaration under Section 9(1) of the aforesaid Act passed by the Govt. of India on 18-6-1986. (2) The detention is in respect of an incident dated 28-2-1986. The petitioner is a petty domestic servant working at Dubai and on the date of incident he allegedly landed at Delhi Airport and after getting clearance from the immigration counter, the petitioner collected his luggage at the conveyer belt and while he was passing through the green channel he was intercepted by the Customs authorities. His luggage was thoroughly checked but nothing was recovered. Thereafter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›