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.
Manak Textiles Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT593TriDel
1. Show cause notice dated 28-4-1977 was issued to the appellants M/s.Manak Textiles Mills alleging that they had manufactured canvas cloth classifiable under Item 19-I(i) CET and had cleared the same without payment of proper duty during the period 1975-76 and a total amount of Rs. 85,725.75 paise was proposed to be recovered from them under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules by way of basic excise duty, auxiliary duty and Cess. The appellants denied that they had manufactured canvas and claimed that they had manufactured and cleared dedhsuti only and, therefore, no amount was recoverable from them. After adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 8-12-1977 confirmed the demand. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 26-8-1983. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri V. Sreedharan, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar for the Department.3. The proceedings had commenced with the visi...
Relish Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT622TriDel
1. Since both the appeals involve preliminary question of jurisdiction pressed by the learned Advocate for the appellant companies, a common order is being passed.2. Point raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant companies is that the goods were imported by the appellant companies through Madras Custom House under Notification 117/78, dated 9-6-1978 in terms of the advance licensing scheme of the Import Trade Control authorities. In terms of the said notification an undertaking was given by the appellant companies to the competent authorities of the Madras Custom House that the good so imported would either be used in the manufacture or packing of the resultant product or for replacing the goods used for making the cartons already exported by them. Goods involved in the instant case are White Card Board. The question posed by the learned Advocate is that the competent authority to initiate action against the appellant companies is the concerned Custom House i.e. the officers o...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC239
1. The question for decision in this appeal by the Revenue is proper classification of respondents product "Diamond Coat Art Paper" and "Diamond Coat Chrome Paper" -Diamond being brand name - whether it falls under Tariff Item 17(1) of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood after its amendment on 28-2-1982 hereinafter called Central Excise Tariff and if so not eligible to exemption from demand of duty under Notification 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 or Tariff Item 17(2) of the Tariff making it eligible to exemption under the notification.2. The present dispute arises under the following circumstances.Earlier the respondents had been classifying two description of papers set out above under Tariff Item 17(1) as coated printing and writing paper until amendment of Tariff Item 17 on 27-2-1982. Simultaneously with this amendment Notification 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 exempting converted types of paper and paper board other than wall paper, art and chrome boar...
The Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT290
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In this writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the legality of the order dated September 9. 1986, has been challenged and the same is sought to be quashed by which the petitioner has been denied the incentive introduced by Incentive Scheme dated November 15, 1980 read with circular dated December 30, 1980. (2) The manufacture of sugar is an industry regulated under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951./ Section 10 of the said Act provides for registration of all such industries and Section 11(1) provides for granting license for new industries and Section 11A prohibits the manufacture by a registered and licensed undertaking of any new article. So, in this way there is a complete control over the sugar industry by the Government. Section 298 of the said Act entitles the Central Government to obviate the necessity of complying with the provisions of Sections 10, 11A and 13 the said Act. (3) In order to see that the produc...
inder Mohan Vs. Dte. of Training and T.E.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: 1988RLR308
P.K. Bahrl, J.(1) [ED. facts ; Respdt. 1 is an Office of Delhi Adm. (Respdt. 2). It is running 4 Polytechnics at G.T. Road, Okhla and at Pusa. At G.T. Road and Okhia there are 30 seats each for evening course in Electrical Engg. Petitioner applied for same and his position was 21st in merit list. At Okhia there is 100% reservation for Sch. Castes & Tribes. So petitioner was not given admission. He has challenged constitutional validity of this reservation. Respdt. no. 3. Director of Dte. filed affidavit saying that the seats at Okhia were newly created for Sch. Castes & Tribes and hence reservation for them.] After detailing above judgment proceeds : (2) Counsel for the respondents has argued that in view of Art. 15(4) read with Art. 46 of the Constitution the respondents were fully justified in creating cent per cent seats in its institutions for giving training to the candidates belonging to the said lower strata of the society. It is, no doubt, a laudable object that the State shoul...
Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ221; 1988RLR224
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner seeks revision of the order dated 5-7-1978 of the Add). District Judge, Delhi, whereby he held that reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was barred by limitation, and thus refusing to proceed with reference.(2) The petitioner is stated to be the owner of 24 Bighas 10 bids was of agricultural land in village Kolokari, Delhi A notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the land of the petitioner and other lands was issued on 13-11-1959, and a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26/27-7-1961. A award was given on 16-2-1962. It has been the contention of the petitioner that no notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act were issued to him and he was also not informed of the making of the award and no notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act was ever served upon him.(3) It appears after making the award, the learned Collector made a reference under Section 30 of the Act. This...
Exportos India and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT398
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the public notice No. 29ETC(PN)/87 dated 15th October, 1987 (Annexure 7); circular No. OT/EEC-USA/POL/CIR/E[294l87 dated 30th October, 1987 (Annexure 8); circular No. OT/EECUSA/POL/CIR/E/314187 dated 19th November, 1987 (Annexure 9) and the communication dated 8th December, 1987 (Annexure 12) and seeking an order directing the respondents to issue export certificates to the petitioners against the petitioners' commitments to export cotton yarn to Usa and restraining the respondents from preventing such exports. We had dismissed the petition on 14th January, 198S by a short order. Now we give reasons in support of that order.(2) The dispute is about the petitioners' right to export cotton yarn to Usa against specific orders entered between the period 23-6-87 to 28-8-87.(3) By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Impo...
Rashmi Kapur Vs. Raman Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ240; 1988RLR232
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This order will dispose of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the respondent for permission to amend the reply filed earlier.(2) The petitioner had filed an application under Section 7 of the Guardian & Wards Act read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1950, inter alia, praying that she, who was the mother of two children, should be declared and appointed guardian of the said minor children in place of the respondent who is her husband and father of the two minor children. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was not entitled to act as a guardian of the children and he should accordingly be removed and the petitioner appointed in his place.(3) On 15th July, 1987 reply was filed by the respondent to the afore- said petition. The heading of the reply reads as follows : 'REPLY to the application under Section 7 of the Guardian & Wards Act, read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1950 on behalf of ...
Synthetic and Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1988
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT496TriDel
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that no Mod-vat credit is admissible on Hydrant Valves and Instrument Cables.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of synthetic rubber and various other products. They are availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A and Rule 57Q. The appellants took Modvat credit on Instrument Cables and Hydrant Valves.The department alleged that they are not capital goods and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.3. Shri S.L. Sethi, learned Advocate appears for the appellants. He submits that this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Novo Udyog Limited [1996 (88) E.L.T. 532] held that "In view of the wider meaning and enlarged definition of the capital goods, as can be seen from the explanation, it is clear that not only machines which are bringing about any change but also components and accessories of the above ...
Neelam and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes545; 34(1988)DLT152
Malik, J.(1) The petitioners are aggrieved of the prosecution initiated against them under sections 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code in F.I.R. No. 317/84, police station Kingsway Camp, Delhi pending in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the charge sheet to be framed against the petitioners under sections 380/34 Indian Penal Code . by his order dated 24th July 1985. The revision filed against the order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 6th November 1985. The petitioners being not satisfied with the orders have approached this court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C. and have prayed that the records be sent for and the F.I.R. and the prosecution of the petitioners be quashed as it is an abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as the prosecution has been initiated at the instance of the husband of petitioner No. 1 who is a police official and is meant to cause harassment. (2) Fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »