Delhi Court January 1988 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.
H.M.M. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT422TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal is liability of the appellants to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68 in respect of Coal cinder sold by them between 1.4.1981 to 31.1.1983 and legality and propriety of personal penalty of Rs. 3,000/- imposed against them for breach of certain Central Excise rules set out in the impugned order.2. The present proceedings against the appellants arose as per show cause notice dated 17.10.83 which raised demand for the period 1.4.1981 to 31.1.1983 based in Trade Notice No. 82-CE, dated 28.8.1982 issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate. This Trade Notice stated that coal cinder is identifiable waste and is classifiable under Tariff Item 68. The notice further stated that demand for previous period from 1.8.1978 to 31.3.1981 would be raised after figures for the period were received by them from the appellants in their office. Another Show Cause notice was issued by Superintendent of Central Excise on 7.11.83 but this was cancelled by Show Caus...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. the Enfield India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT654TriDel
1. In the first instance, the respondents verified the outward register of the Collector (Appeals) and stated that they were satisfied that the Appellate Collector received the impugned order-in-appeal on 4.3.1986 and the appeal was, therefore, in time. As regards one day's delay in submission of the respondent's cross objection, the Learned Representative of the Department stated that he had no objection to the delay being condoned. We condoned the delay and took the cross objection on record. The hearing on merits of the appeal then started.2. The dispute in this appeal is on the question of exclusion of dealer's margin of Rs. 260/- per Motor Cycle. The period involved is from 4.1.1984 to 21.9.1984.3. During the material period the respondents disposed of their "SILVER PLUS" Motor Cycles through the following three channels :- (i) 32.5% sold direct to customers through agents or authorised representatives. (ii) 27.4% sold to M/s. Enfield Sales Ltd., for re-sale in Tamil Nadu State o...
Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC318
1. Being dissatisfied with the confiscation of the imported goods viz., 700 packages of 35000 kgs. of Cinnamonum Zoylanicum with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act and also imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant Shri Satish Bansal, both the appellants have filed the present appeals.2. Factual backdrops: The appellant M/s. Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi filed an Into-bond bill of entry through their employee Shri Vishnu Kumar Sharma on 23-2-87 for clearance of 700 packages of 35000 kgs. of Cinnamonum Zoylanicum claiming clearance under O.G.L. Appendix -6, Item No. 37 List-4, Serial No. 47 of the Imports and Exports Policy 1985-88 as the import of Darchini (Bark) was admissible under O.G.L.vide Item 47 of List 4. Since according to the Department the said Item 47 of List 4 was deleted vide I.T.C./Notice No. 121-I.T.C.(PN)/85-88 dated 6-10-86 and further import of Darchini (B...
Bhartia Cutler Hammer Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT373TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved because the lower authorities have disallowed the cash discount which they gave to such of their customers as paid the price promptly within 7 days.2. The appellants manufactured motor starters. They sold the goods for delivery FOR destination. Their price circulars to their customers provided for the cash discount of 2% in 1980-81 and 2.5% in 1981-82.They used to issue invoices for the full price without the deduction of cash discount. Simultaneously, they used to send an advice to their Bank (through whom the customer retired the delivery documents) stating, inter alia, that if the customer retired the documents within 7. days of the presentation, the Bank should collect only the lower price net of the cash discount; otherwise, the Bank should collect the full price as per the invoice. The advice used to mention the full invoice price as well as the net cash discounted price. About 35% of their customers paid the price promptly within 7 days and got b...
Collector Central Excise Vs. J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT681TriDel
1. The respondents had made a prayer for grant of stay in respect of the show cause notice dated 22-12-1987. Shri V. Sridharan, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents. He has reiterated the contentions made in the misc. application. The Bench has desired Shri Sridharan to satisfy the Tribunal whether the Tribunal is empowered to stay the operation of the show cause notice pertaining to the period subsequent to the filing of the appeal. To this Shri Sridharan stated that the applicant's case is fully covered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of ITC and Anr. v. U.O.I, reported at 1983 ELT 1. He has stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that - "In our opinion the power of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal, contained in the proviso to Section 35F, is of a wide amplitude. In appropriate cases the said appellate authorities will have the power to issue directions with regard to future levy which may be imposed or threatened. Apart fr...
Lodha Fabrics Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT712TriDel
1. Under order dated 25-7-1981 the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim of the appellants M/s. Lodha Fabrics. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under order dated 20-8-1983 for default of appearance. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri Harbans Singh, advocate for the appellants and Smt. Saxena for the Department.3. Since the Collector (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for default of appearance and it is only his jurisdiction to do so that will have to be considered in the present appeal, it is unnecessary to state the facts leading to the refund claim.4. Under the rules which govern the procedure of the appeals before the Collector (Appeals) there is no provision that entitled the Collector to dismiss the appeal for default of appearance. In the absence of any such provision the Collector had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default. He was bound to consider the materials available and come to a conclusion on...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Eupharma Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT471TriDel
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent company availed of the benefit of the Notification No. 117/66 dated 16-7-1966 in respect of patent or proprietary medicines (P or P medicines) sold by the respondent company to the E.S.I.C. - a Govt, department - on the prices in terms of the contract entered into by the respondent company with the E.S.I.C. authorities. The goods were, however, cleared by the respondent company through its distributors to the retail chemist shops approved by E.S.I.C. The distributors made a commission of 7% on such sales by the respondent company. The departmental authorities took an objection that the respondent company was not eligible to the benefit of the said notification inasmuch as the goods were not supplied directly to the Government departments i.e. E.S.I.C. authorities in the instant case but to the approved chemist shops which cannot be treated as Government departments. Accordingly, the terms of the notification namely P or P medicines "s...
Mohinder Pal Mohindra Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi270; 1989(1)ARBLR326(Delhi); 37(1989)DLT345; 1989(16)DRJ244; 1989RLR139
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) These two petitions are being disposed of by this order. Facts, in brief, are that a contract was entered into between Delhi Administration and Mohinder Pal by virtue of the which the work for increasing the capacity of Nazafgarh Drain was awarded to Mohinder Pal. There arose certain disputes with regard to the said contract and Mohinder Pal invoked Clause 25 of the Agreement which provided for reference of disputes to the arbitrator to be nominated by Chief Engineer concered. Admittedly the Chief Engineer had nominated Shri Kishan Chand then Director (TE), , Water Commission, R.K. Puarm, New Delhi as sole arbitrator. It it an admitted fact that Shri Kishan Chand had reached the age of superannuation on April 30, 1986 but he continued to conduct the arbitration proceedings even after retirement and it is also not disputed that both the parties had given a consent in writing to the said arbitrator extending the period for making the award from time to time. However, la...
P.M. Diesels Private Limited Vs. Thukral Mechanical Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi282; 1988(1)ARBLR150(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT235; 1988(15)DRJ47
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This order will dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 being is 7329/85 and the defendant's application under Order 39, Rule 4 being is 6624/86.(2) The plaintiff has filed a suit, inter alia, praying for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in diesel oil engines and parts thereof, electric motors, agricultural pumps or centrifugal pumps or parts thereof bearing the trade mark 'Field Marshal' or any other similar or identical trade mark. There is also a prayer for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents etc. from passing off diesel oil engines and parts thereof such as pumps and electric motors under the trade mark 'Field Marshal'. It is alleged in the plaint that since the year 1963 the plaintiff company has been carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing and exporting of diesel oil engines and parts thereof not for...
Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT153
Malik, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the declaration under section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 passed on 12th January 1987 by Shri M. L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India. Before I proceed to examine the grounds of detention I must take notice of certain facts and objections raised by the respondents.(2) The petitioner in pursuance of a detention order dated 9th of December 1986 passed under section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by the Government of Karnataka came to be detained. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in concealing and transporting smuggled goods. This followed an incident dated 14th October 1986 when it is alleged that huge quantity of silver was recovered from a truck Usw 7438 which was owned by the petitioner and was on the date of the incid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »