Delhi Court February 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.
Krishna Rani and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1988
Reported in: I(1988)ACC437
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants against order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 18-3-1986 rejecting the claim for compensation.2. The accident took place on 3-2-1980 at about 9.00 p.m. somewhere around Bhagat Singh Market. The bus, bearing No. DEP 3838, hit the deceased Bhag Ram Ahuja while taking a turn in great speed. The deceased was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was declared dead. Ramji Dass is the eye witness. He was disbelieved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that no site plan nor the inspection report of the vehicle was produced by the claimants. The Tribunal, thereforee, dismissed the claim petition.3. Eye witness, Ramji Dass, had stated in his evidence that he was traveling in the bus which caused the accident and was sitting on the front seat near the driver. He stated that the bus was being run at a high speed of about 50 kilometers per hour and the passengers in the bus asked the driver not to drive the bus at such ...
Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT447TriDel
1. The present appeal has been filed by "The Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd." against Order No. 63-CE/Alld/83, dated 3-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appeal has not been filed in the prescribed form EA 3. The letter-head of the appellant company on which the appeal memo has been inscribed shows that the company is functioning under "Receivership". The memo of appeal is signed by some person for the Receiver. The name and designation of the person have not been specified. It is not clear whether the said person was authorised to file the appeal. The notice of hearing for 10-12-1987 was returned by the Postal authorities with the remark that there was no mill functioning (at the given address) in the name and style of Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd. No other address is available on the file. On 10-12-1987, the Bench directed the Registry to issue notice for 15-2-1988 through the departmental authorities. The said notice has also been received back...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT664TriDel
1. This appeal impugns the order appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta, No. 75/BR/84 dated 7.3.1984 in respect of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. By this order the Col lector (Appeals) directed to refund to be given, because he held that the castings which had been assessed as finished machine parts under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff as not qualifying for such assessment. He held that so long as the castings requite further operation for fitment into the machinery to which it is intended to be fitted, they do not qualify for assessment under Item 68.2. The learned counsel for the department, Mr. Rajhans referred to order No. 192/86-B1. In the present dispute the goods are shaft rollers, shaft couplings and pistons. He read the orders of the Assistant Collector and the show cause notice and said that the goods were identifiable machine parts. These goods received further machining but this further machining is done in the same factory. Thes...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ghosi Sahkari Kray-vikray
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC157Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. The facts are that the respondent deposited Rs. 6,893.00 as initial advance under AR-8 for payment of duty on the Khandsari Sugar produced by them. The amount was un-utilised and the party filed claim for refund of the amount on 15-3-1981. This claim was received in the office of the Assistant Collector on 30-7-1981. The Assistant Collector held that as per Section 11B a refund claim was to be filed before the Assistant Collector within a period of 6 months and that since in this case, the claim was received in the office of the Asstt. Collector after the 6-month period, it was barred by limitation. When the resppndent went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the appeal was allowed on the grounds that the claim was duly received in the Range Office within the prescribed period and that delay in receipt in the office of the Asstt.Collector was due to the Inspector i...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Calico Dyeing and Printing Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT418TriDel
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. D-1546/BI/381/83 dated 12-9-1983 whereby the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, found in favour of M/s. Calico Dyeing and Printing Mills (the respondents) before us.2. Briefly stated, the dispute is about the dutiability of Medium 'B' Dyed Cot ton Fabrics subjected by the respondents to the process of wax emulsion to fill up the in terstices of the fabrics with a view to reduce the air permeability to an almost negligible extent and impart no water permeability at all. The fabric is stated to be for use as umbrel la cloth and was claimed by the respondents to be "water-proofed" fabric. The Collector (Appeals) considered that the circumstances, facts and issues involved in the matter before him were identical in all respects to those in the case of M/s. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (Misc. Petition Nos. 345 of 1972 and 793 of 1980) decided by the Bombay High Court. The Collector held that the subject product...
C.C.E. Vs. India Explosives Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC426Tri(Delhi)
1. The first question that arises for decision in this appeal alongwith cross objection is whether the respondents were entitled to the deduction of Fertilizer Pool Equalisation Charges (FPFC) between 18 7 1975 to 7.8.1975 and, if so, how much. The second question that is to be decided, if necessary, the demands raised against the respondent we barred by limitation. The Assistant Collector held that they arc not caused to any deduction of FPFC whereas in appeal the Collector of Central Fx.sse (Appeals) allowed the deduction of Rs, 335/-for the purpose of assessable value.2 The facts that led to these questions relate entirely to legalities.Briefly these facts are that Notification No. 108/74 (as amended) exempted fertilizer specified therein from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon as these equivalent to the duty calculated on the value specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the table annexed to the Notification. There is no dispute that the respondents manufacture...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Sanitaryware and Ind.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT421TriDel
1. This dispute is the assessment of a pump imported by M/s. Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries called a sand piper pump with combination filter, lubricator and regulator. This sahd piper pump is used on the vibro energy grinding mill to pump slurry. It is a diaphragm pump powered by compressed air. They can be used to handle materials like ceramic slips and glaze, ore concentrate, iron oxide, slurry, sewage etc. The Assistant Collector said that the leaflet showed that these pumps can handle solids up to 1/4".2. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta by his order No.Cal-Cus.-3321/82 dated 17.11.1982 decided that the pumps should be assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 84.10 which covers pumps for liquids and not under Heading 84.59 (1) favoured by the Assistant Collector. He reasoned that the pumps are used in pumping, that liquid was the basic medium and the design of the pump was that it can accommodate solid-laden liquid; but the size of the solid should be smaller tha...
Collector of Customs Vs. Shriram Vinyl and Chemical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT87TriDel
1. These two appeals have their genesis in the show cause notice F. No.380/54/81-CUS. II dated the 18th August, 1981, issued by the Central Government to the two respondents mentioned above. The notice which was issued in terms of Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, proposed to review the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-5-1980, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The respondents were called upon by the aforesaid notice to show cause why the said Order-in-Appeal should not be set aside and appropriate orders should not be passed.2. The facts of the case in the case of the Andhra Sugars is that they imported a consignment of "Korobon Heat Exchanger". In the case of Shriram Vinyl & Chemical Industries, the goods imported were "Karbate Parts of Heat Exchangers". These goods being articles made of graphite were assessed to customs duty under Heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule). The two r...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes839; 34(1988)DLT271; 1988(14)DRJ263
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Ashok Kumar who is presently lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, after having been sentenced to life imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, seeking a writ of mandamus to the State directing forthwith release of the petitioner.(2) The main plea of the petitioner was that as be was admittedly 17/18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, i.e., an adolescent being below 21 years of age, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him ought to have been altered to detention up to a maximum period of seven years in a Borstal institute as provided under Section 5 of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926 (hereinafter called 'the Act').(3) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 18th December, 1979 and has been undergoing the sentence since then. His case was that as he had already undergon(4) Thus the plea set forth in the pr...
Arunodhaya Paper Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT295TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 33,370.91 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposition of penalty of Rs. 500 under Rule 173Q ibid the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop: As a result of visit to the manufacturing premises of the appellants on 3-4-1982 the officer concerned found that the appellant had manufactured corrugated box falling under T.I. 68 without obtaining any Central Excise Licence and had also exported corrugated box to Nepal and Bhutan without payment of Central Excise duty and further without issuing the gate pass or observing the other provisions of law. As a sequence thereof a show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 33,370.91 be not demanded on the goods exported to Nepal and Bhutan and penalty be not imposed, was issued. In reply it was contended that the goods manufactured by the appellant have since been classified under T.I. 68, as such ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »