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.
Wood Polymer Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC250
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of industrial plastic laminated sheets. Upto 31.12.1980, they paid duty under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff on the basis of classification list approved by the proper officer. With effect from 1.1.1981, the classification was changed to T.I. 68 and duty was paid under that item. As per Tariff Advice No. 123/81, dated 16.11.1981, industrial laminated sheets were classified under Tariff Item 15A(2) instead of Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants continued to pay duty under T.I. 68 till 28.12.1981. There was no clearance during the period from 28.12.1981 to 31.12.1981. On 5.2.1982, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a Show Cause Notice demanding duty under Item 15A(2) of the Tariff for the period from 16.11.1981 to 31.12.1981. The appellants contended that duty for the period from 16.11.1981 to 28.12.1981 could not be charged under Item 15A(2) as the Tariff Advice was communicated to th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Flexcord Cables Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC289Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent company herein is, inter alia, manufacturing mains cords on job basis on being supplied PVC wires in the coil form as raw material for the cords by some of its customers. The wires so supplied are cut according to the specifications of the customers and then made into cords of standard length with PVC plug attached thereto in moulded form. The balance wire in the form of small cut pieces left after manufacture of standard cords were returned to the customers alongwith the finished products.The cords are assessed by the department under Tariff Item 68 and no objection has been taken thereto by the respondent company herein.2. The respondent company after crossing clearance value of Rs. 12 lakhs applied for L-4 licence and after crossing clearances worth Rs. 15 lakhs started paying Central Excise duty. The jurisdictional Superintendent, however, noted that the respondents had not taken into account the raw material value in computing th...
Collector of C. Ex Vs. Johnson and Johnson Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT699TriDel
1. The respondents M/s. Johnson and Johnson Limited are manufacturing Band Aid medicated dressings falling under Item 14E-CET. In the process of the manufacture of the said dressings, the respondents manufacture Adhesive Rolls which, accordingly to the department, was an excisable product falling under Item 60-CET. Six Show Cause notices were issued to the respondents as to why duty on the said product (Adhesive Tapes) should not be demanded from them for the period Jan 80 to Jun 80; Jul 80 to Dec 80; Jan 81 to May 81; Jun 81 to Aug 81; Sep 81 to Jan 82 and Feb 82 to May 82. The respondents replied denying liability. After adjudication the Assistant Collector passed two orders, one dated 26-7-1982 (in respect of the first five show cause notices) and the other dated 26-8-1982 (regarding the sixth show cause notice). Under these orders he confirmed the demands. The respondents preferred two appeals which were disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) under his consolidated order dated 11-...
Devi Charan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes458; 34(1988)DLT79
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The appellant Devi Charan and one Mahender were convicted and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to payment of fineofRs.500.00 each under section 392 read with section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they were further sentenced to six months imprisonment. (2) The prosecution case against the appellant is based on an incident dated 14th of October 1979 when at about 8 a.m. the appellant and Mahender armed with a knife and a pistol, respectively, intercepted one T.C. Joseph and his wife Marry Joseph, in a street near F-Block, Green Park, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of police station Hauz Khas and by putting them to the fear of causing bodily harm robbed them of a lady wrist watch Henry Sandoz, a gold chain and a also male wrist-watch Ricko make and Rs. 40.00 in case. They had come on a scooter and also escaped on the scooter. (3) The prosecution case further is that on different dates appellant Devi Charan, Ma...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sringar Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT581TriDel
1. The following order had been passed in connection with the first appeal and the cross-objection thereto :- "Shri L.C. Chakraborty says that to comply with the practice and procedure followed in the Tribunal he may be granted time to file one supplementary appeal as the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority had disposed of two appeals. Now that Shri Poch-khanawala Advocate for the respondent has come all the way from Bombay it is not considered prudent to adjourn hearing of the appeal opt this count. Shri Chakraborty may file supplementary appeal along with formal application for condonation of delay today itself. Shri Pochkhanawala says that he would not oppose the application for condonation of delay in the said supplementary appeal. Parties also agree that the supplementary appeal as and when filed may be disposed of on the strength of arguments advanced during hearing of this appeal and on the same lines as the present appeal. Argument heard. Appeal dismissed. R...
Manoharlal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes627; 34(1988)DLT173
Malik, J. (1) The appellant was convicted under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to payment of fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine he was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. It was also directed that the period of under-trial custody should be set off against the sentence so recorded. (2) Briefly standing the allegations against the appellant are that be kidnapped one Kumari Veena prosecutrix from the lawful custody of her father on 16th of December 1983 with a view to compel her to marry against her will and that Kumari Veena on the relevant date, according to the prosecution, was a minor below 18 years of age as her date of birth recorded in the school admission register was 6th of July 1967. Stating in detail, it is alleged that on 16th of December 1983 at 7 a.m the prosecutrix left for. her school and did not return from the school in the normal course and a report in ...
Maya Ram Sharma Vs. H.C. Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT165
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Competent Authority (Slum) dated 29th January 1973 whereby I the application filed by the respondent for instituting eviction proceedings against the petitioner was allowed The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a portion of house no. 1633, Gali Krishna Sohan Ganj, Subji Mandi, Delhi comprising of two rooms, one store and two kitchens on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 12.00 since the year 1942 In the year 1971respondents 2 and 3 moved an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act seeking permission to institute proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the premises It was averred in the petition that the family of the petitioner consisted of 9 members including five sons, two daughters. They were living in commonsality. The two sons who were employed were earning more than Rs. 1000.00 per month as salary, the d...
M. Mohammed Ali Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT389
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The petitioner herein seeks a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the consequential prayer for his release forthwith, after quashing the order of detention dated 16/12/1987, passed by respondent No. 2 herein, namely, Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. New Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of FOREIGN Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,(COF'EPOSA for short).(2) The facts, as called from the grounds of detention, briefly stated are that one Mohindeen Abdul Khader, resident of 15/81.East Street, Kailakarai, a police in Romanad District, TamilNadu was apprehended by the officers of the Central Excise.Coimbatore. at a place in Tamil Nadu. on 9/07/1987, while he was traveling in Bus No. ...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Ranjit Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)26ITD246(Delhi)
1. These are the appeals filed by the Wealth-tax Officer, Dist. VI(2), New Delhi against the orders of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner in relation to the assessments made on the assessee for the wealth-tax assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 in the case of Shri Ranjit Singh and 1981-82 and 1982-83 in the case of Shri Amar Jeet Singh. Since the point involved is identical in both the cases, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a partner in a firm of jewellers called Jewellers Corner holding 55 per cent share therein. The copy of the trading account of the firm of Jewellers Corner in respect of gold disclosed the average selling price of the jewellery at Rs. 924 per 10 gm. The closing stock was valued at Rs. 595 per 10 gm. By applying the provisions of Rule 2B(2), the Wealth-tax Officer revalued the closing stock at Rs. 790 per 10 gm. and arrived at a difference of Rs. 1,79,985 out of which the assessee's share was worked out to Rs. 98,990.Similarly, in the silve...
Deepak Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT255
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) Since a very short point is involved in the revision petition I have beard the learned, counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the revision petition itself. (2) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 20th August 1987 in suit no. 505/80 whereby the evidence of the petitioner- defendant was closed and the case was listed for final arguments. (3) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of possession of the property bearing no. 1550,1556 (half) & 1557 (half) situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The petitioner-defendant has pleaded in his written statement that his father was the tenant under the custodian of evacuee property and thereafter under the respondent by operation of law. In order to prove that the petitioner was the tenant under the respondent he wanted certain receipts issued by the Custodian...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »