Delhi Court December 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.
Suresh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)Crimes245; 38(1989)DLT71
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) These two writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and are being disposed of by this judgment. (2) The detention orders dated March 28, 1988, have been passed against the petitioners separately under Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to the 'COFEPOSA Act') in order to prevent the petitioners from smuggling gold or abetting the smuggling and engaging in transportation or concealing or keeping smuggled gold. As a matter of fact, on same type of facts and grounds of detention, six detention orders were made. The detention orders in question are being challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds, firstly, that statements which were made by the petitioners and other co-accused under Section 108 of the Indian Customs Act, 1962, in which material confessions were made which are the basis of passing of the detention order...
Ballarpur Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC38
1. The question to be decided in this case is whether the appellants were entitled to Proforma Credit under Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4.6.1979, as amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28.2.1982, in respect of the duty paid on sodium Sulphate, Alumina Ferric, Rosin, Pulverised Guar Gum, Sodium Hexa Meta Phosphate, Formaldehyde and Glyoxal 40% used in the manufacture of paper and paper board. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range II, Jamuna Nagar denied the benefit of above notification w.e.f. 9.11.1982 on the plea that the abovementioned items were not raw materials and were burnt and not retained in the paper. A show cause notice was issued on 18.1.1983 for recovery of duty equivalent to Proforma Credit availed on the above items for the period from 28.2.1982 To31.10.1982 on the same grounds.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ambala, vide his Order-in-Original No. 53-SE/86, dated 27.6.1986, held that the aforesaid inputs were essential raw materials f...
Worthington Pump India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC174Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case are that M/s. Worthington Pump India Limited, the applicants herein manufactured C.I. Castings. From March, 1975 they paid Central Excise duty on this product under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. On 17.12.1977, they filed an application claiming refund of Central Excise duty of Rs. 15,806.59 paid on the C.I. Castings during the period from 14.3.1975 to 9.8.1977. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad granted refund for a period of six months prior to 17.12.1977 under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (i.e. from 17.6.1977 to 17.12.1977) and rejected the claim for the earlier period. The applicants herein contended before the Assistant Collector that the duty was paid under protest. The Assistant Collector observed that the word "protest" appeared in respect of assessment of the goods in question for the first time in their letter dated 22.7.1977. He, therefore, rejected the contention of the applicants herein that duty was paid by ...
Basf India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC1
1. This appeal arises from the order of the Collector reviewing the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 35-A (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood then.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants manufacture polystyrene into which goes styrene, as an input. On 27-2-1980 the Central Government issued a notification No. 6/80 exempting polystyrene from the duty of excise in excess of 27% ad valorem where the resins were manufactured from chemicals derived from raw naphtha. The appellants availed of the notification during the period 7th September 1980 to 31st October 19.81.3. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 21-12-1981 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, asking them to show cause why differential duty should not be recovered from them on the ground that the concessional rate of assessment was available only if duty paid input is used in the manufacture of polystyrene, and not imported input is used. The Assistant ...
Collector of Customs Vs. H.D. Exporters
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC334
1. In this case, the respondents imported goods which were assessed to duty by the customs on classification, as paper boards. Respondents sought reassessment of the goods under heading 48.01/21(3) of Customs Tariff as art paper. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. In appeal, however, the Collector (Appeals) allowed reassessment of the impugned goods as art paper on the ground that similar consignments had earlier been assessed as art paper. It is against this order that the department is now before us.2. We have heard Smt. Vijay Zutshi, SDR for the department and Shri M.Ranka, advocate, for the respondents.3. Smt. Zutshi concedes that the issue involved in the department's appeal has already been decided against revenue by the Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Agencies v. Collector of Customs, Bombay . She, however, files copies of public notice No.211/81 containing decisions of Collectors Conference held in March, 1981, which includes a decision in regard to classifica...
Paras Parshd Suraj Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ231
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Accused Paras Parsad in criminal appeal No. 131 of 85 and accused Suraj Pal Singh in criminal appeal No. 154 of 85 Along with Achhey Lal were at different times employed in factory known as Metropol, which was being run at 262, Okhla Phase Iii, New Delhi. In the evening of 15-11-80, they are alleged to have to the said factory and casually enquired from Ram Lal Chowkidar as to who amongst the owners of the concern would be sleeping in the factory premises that night, Ram Lal told them that most probably Om Pal would be sleeping. Late at night, they are alleged to have again come to the factory, fully armed, and manhandled Babu Ram Chowkidar by forcing him to call out Om Pal from the room he was sleeping in. As soon as Om Pal opened the door, the accused persons stabbed him and took away with them the brief case containing cash amounting to Rs. 2641.00. In that process, the accused had wrongfully restrained and confined Ved Parkash and Shiv Prasad Tiwari, the other c...
Bhartu Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: 1989RLR200
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The land of the applicants including other land of village Badli was acquired under Land Acquisition Act The L.A. Collector by his award No. 35/81-82 dt. 10.11.1981 offered compensation to the applicants @ Rs. 2,000.00 per bigha. On reference u/s 18 of the Act the market Value of the land of the applicants was determined @ Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha by the award made on 30.4.1984 by Additional District Judge. By judgment and decree dt. 23.3.1987 passed by this Court the market value of the acquired land of I the applicants was determined at Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha and the appeal was accordingly allowed. However, it was directed that the appellants will be paid solarium and interest in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prior to its amendment by L.A. (Amendment) Act 1984; but, if and when judgment is delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the matter in which judgment has been reserved, and if the appellants a...
Union of India Vs. Manqat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT123
S.B. Wad, J. (1) --THIS is a land acquisition Regular First Appeal filed by the Union of India against the order of the District Judge. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs. 4.00O.00 per bigha. The District Judge raised it to Rs. 12.000.00 per bigha. the contention in the appeal is that the enhancement should not have been beyond Rs. 7,000.00 . The award was made by the Collector in this case on 13.11.1981. Another question raised in the appeal is whether the additional benefits under section 2-(l) (after the amendment) can be given in the award rendered pi ior to the amendment. On the second question large number of appeals were hide in the Supreme Court. They are already heard and the judgment is awaited. (2) There is a delay of eighty days in filing the appeal. The averments in the application for condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code are ; (1) That the limitation for the above noted appeal expired on 8th Jul...
Kashmir Vanaspati (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT655TriDel
1. In this case, the Preventive Staff of Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh visited tie factory premises of the appellants on 2.8.1986 and seized one private note book stated to be maintained by Shri Desh Raj, a contractor working with the appellants. After comparing the entries recorded in the note book with the RG-1 register, the Department issued a show cause notice to the appellants alleging that on 21.1.1986, 22.1.1986, 5.2.1986 and 11.7.1986, the appellants removed 956 tins of vegetable product in excess of what was recorded in the RG-1 register. It was, therefore, alleged that the appellants contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53,173G, 173F and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by clandestinely removing those 956 tins of vegetable product without payment of duty of Rs. 22,444.56. After adjudicating the case, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh demanded duty of Rs. 22,444.56 in respect of those 956 tins of vegetable product under Rule 9(2)...
O.P. Nagpal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT494TriDel
1. Appeallant was First Secretary in the Embassy of India, Kathmandu.He purchased a car Nissan Sunny 1000 CC, which was in his possession' in Nepal from August, 1984 to July, 1986. On transfer of his residence, after completion of service in Nepal, appellant imported the car into India in July, 1986. Appellant, is in appeal before us against the orders of the lower authority in regard to the valuation of the car for purposes of levy of Import duties.2. We have heard the appellant Shri O.P. Nagpal in person and Shri A.S.R. Nair, SDR, for the department.3. Shri Nagpal was brief in his submissions and relied on his written grounds of appeal. These are summed up as under: - (i) It is submitted that the lower authorities have wrongly denied to him the normal trade discount of 15%, which is a general practice in all sales of motor cars by manufacturers to distributors or purchasers, although not exhibited in the invoice of the distributors or traders to the individual purchasers. It is stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »