Delhi Court May 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Naz Enterprises and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC1
1. The question that arises in these two appeals is whether the plastic shells manufactured by the respondents and sent to M/s. Universal Luggage Manufacturing Company are goods, and if so, whether they are excisable and, if so, what is their correct classification. The Assistant Collector after issue of show cause notice held that the plastic shells manufactured by the respondents out of H.D.F. granules are goods and are liable to duty. Both the respondents filed appeals to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) against these orders. The appeals are allowed by the said Collector who in his order observed as follows: The only issue to be decided in these cases is whether the plastic moulded parts manufactured by the appellants are 'goods' or otherwise. It is observed that these are the plastic shells obtained out of the HDPE granules supplied by the Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. They have got specific application. It is an admitted fact that they do not come into the market for being ...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Rajasthan State Chemical Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT418TriDel
1. These arc two appeals filed by Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi.Application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The order-in-appeal is stated to have been received by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ajmer on 16.4.83 but the said order was not received by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur who took notice of the appellate order on 9.11.1983 when the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ajmer made a reference to him seeking clarifications regarding the refund claim filed by the respondents in pursuance of the appellate order passed in their favour.2. From the narration of the facts, it is seen that the office of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur asked for a copy of the appellate order from the Assistant Collector and the same was received by him on 27.2.84. The learned Departmental Representative for the Department pleaded that in fact there was no delay in filing the appeal as the tim...
General Electric Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT92TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. The short point for consideration is whether flame proof well glasses are eligible for benefit of Notification No. 106/77-Cus. The same matter was heard before this Tribunal in respect of the very same appellant in the case reported in 1983 ELT 384. The Tribunal after seeing a sample of the goods in that case, held as under :- "We have given our earnest consideration to the matter. On seeing the sample, we find that the goods are not lighting fittings as such bet only outer glass shells of electric lamps used in mines. The Department is right in contending that these glass shells arc synonymous with glass envelopes for electric lamps..." which have been specifically excluded from Chapter 85 Customs Tariff Act by Note 1(B) contained at the beginning of the said Chapter. Since these provisions of the Tariff are statutory, the plea that BSS ISI and trade catalogue recognise the impugned glass sh...
Union of India Vs. Shri Govind Deo Glass Works Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi543
C.L. Chaudhry, J.(1) This is a petition on behalf of the Union of India under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act for determination of .the effect .of .the arbitration agreement. The case of the Union is that a contract was entered into between the Union of India and the respondent for supply of certain stores by the respondent detailed in the agreement. In pursuance to the agreement, the respondent offered certain stores which were accepted. Extension of time for supply of remaining stores was asked for by the respondent and it was agreed to by the Union of India. Thereafter, certain stores were supplied by the respondent which were accepted by the Union of India on 18-12-1967 and also on 27-1-68. The respondent by letter dated 4-6-68 again applied for extension of time. Further extension was granted up to 28-2-1969 with usual R/R clause. During this period also the respondent supplied certain stores which were accepted by the Union of India. Since the respondent failed to supply the co...
Dharma Pratishthan and ors. Vs. B. Mandal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Del)52; 35(1988)DLT222; [1988]173ITR487(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Only a short legal question was involved in this petition and I have heard arguments to finally dispose of the petition. (2) This petition has been brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr. P C'J praying that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the court of Smt. Manju Goel, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, be quashed. (3) The facts leading to the present petition, in brief, are that petitioner No. I, which is a duly registered society (stated to be a obtainable society) had filed income tax return of the assessment year 1981-82 showing a loss of Rs.2.9,73,820.00 . The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner vide order dated March 30, 1984, however, found the return to be wrong and she determined the income of the Society to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000.00 . The Society preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax who vide order dated February 27, 1985, bad set aside the assessment order...
Ramesh Dutt Salwan Vs. State Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: 1988RLR387
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) [ED. facts : Appellant and Respondent No. 2 are brothers while No. 3 and 4 are their sisters and No. 5 is a sister's husband. Appellant alleging that their mother had made a will on 8-5-74 applied for grant of probate u/s 299 of Succession Act. He was joined by Respdt. 5 as both of them were named executors. Respdt. No. 5 however did not pursue. Appellant did not produce original will alleging same to be in possession of Respdt. No. 2. The will was presented for registration after 20 days and it was regd. on 29-5-74. Its attesting witnesses were not local and they were relations of the appellant's wife. One of attesting witness was examined in court. The parties also deposed on oath. Respdt. 2 denied execution and genuineness of the will and claimed that the mother had made a will in 1968 and same having not been revoked deserved credence. Trial Court rejected the application and appellant appealed to High Court.] After detailing above facts, judgment proceeds :- (1...
Paramount Cable Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC222Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that on verification of the stock of fully manufactured electric wires and cables manufactured by the appellants, they were found to be having in stock 330 coils of dropo wires, PVC insulated conductors which had not been entered in the RG-I register. These electric wires and cables were found to have been manufactured prior to 4.12.1981 before the issue of the licence.Further check resulted in the seizure of some records which showed that the appellants had manufactured, tested and cleared 2645 drums of these wires measuring 5173732 mtrs. valued at Rs. 3,96,331/- without accountal in the RG-1 register and without payment of central excise duty. These goods were manufactured during the period when the appellants had no licence as required under the central excise law.Documents seized showed details of wires of 1808 drums and for the remaining 837 drums the ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gramophone Company of India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT267TriDel
1. By a notice dated 8-10-1982 the Government of India issued a show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 calling upon M/s. Gramophone Company of India to show cause why the order-in-appeal No. 1564/Cal-81 dated 18-11-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, should not be set aside.2. The firm M/s. Gramophone Co. made nuts and screws which are fitted in their radiograms as component parts of nuts and screws in-built in such devices. The learned Assistant Manager, who appeared for M/s.Gramophone Co. of India, Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, said that these nuts and screws are not included in the description under Item 33AA of the Central Excise Tariff but were classified under Item 68. Only goods which were known in the trade as bolts and nuts and screws were classifiable under Item 52. The fact that the nuts and screws made by them have threads does not render them a nut or a screw if they are recognisable as component parts of an instrument...
Wooster Products Inc. Vs. Magna Tek Inc. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi6; 1988(2)ARBLR184(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT273
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) The following facts give rise to this order. M/s. Wooster Products Inc., Wooster, Chico (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') filed this O.M.P. No. 143 of 1987 under Order Xxvi Rules 18, 20 and 21 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . in which it was submitted that on or about 1st May. 1984 the petitioner entered into a contract with M/s, Magna Tek Components Inc. New Jersey (hereinafter referred to as ''the respondents' for the purchase of Technology, equipment, machinery and related training and materials necessary for the production, sale and marketing of 1/2 inch Video Tape in the Sub-continent of India; that under the said contract, the petitioner was granted the exclusive right to the use of Magna Tek Components Inc. Technology expertise for the sub-continent of India including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; that pursuant to the said contract, the petitioner has duly discharged its obligation and has paid to the extent of s. 630,00...
Parmeshwar Lal Karel and Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)Crimes616; 35(1988)DLT416
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This judgment disposes of Criminal Writ Petition No. 3 of 1988 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 25 of 1988 as common questions arise for consideration in both the petitions.(2) Parmeshwar Lal Karel, who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3 of 1988, and Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 25 of 1988, have been detained in Central Jail, Dum Dum, Calcutta by virtue of two separate orders dated 4th June, 1987 passed by Shri S. K. Kohli, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA'). The said orders were passed with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. Parmeshwar Lal Karel was detained on 5th June 1987 while he was on bail granted by the High Court of Calcutta. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, who had been arreste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »