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.
Central Inland Water Transport Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)(37)ELT124TriDel
1. First appeal was originally filed as a revision application against the order of Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta and now stands transferred to this Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act. The second appeal Is against the order-ln-appeal passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts, a common order is being passed.2. Before we set out the facts in the two subject appeals a miscellaneous application was filed by the department to bring on record certain documents and hearing was given for bringing those documents on record as prayed for by the department and as opposed by the appellant herein. Miscellaneous application had been heard on 19-10-1987 and orders were reserved on the miscellaneous application directing the parties concerned to advance their arguments in the cases keeping in view the order on miscellaneous application being delivered either way. After hearing the both ...
Dalam Chand Tejmal Baid Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)Crimes720; 35(1988)DLT163; 1988(17)ECC198; 1988RLR426
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The petitioner herein, Dalam Chand TejmalBaid, was arrested on 21/07/1981 under the provisions of Customs Act and remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition for issuance of a writ ofhabeas corpus challenging his detention by virtue of the said remand order.That petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 83/81) was allowed by a division bench of this Court on 18/12/1981. The case is reported in 1982 Criminal Law Journal at page 747. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith. (2) While in judicial custody the impugned order dated 27/08/1981 was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods and from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange. This order was served on the detenue on that very day. It appears that the fact that the detention order had been passed against the petitioner was not brought to the notice of di...
Pradeep Aggarwal Vs. Shyam Plastic Udyog Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT290; 1988RLR437
C.L. Chandhry, J. (1) The plaintiff has preferred this suit for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation on the basis of the the following allegations as disclosed in the plaint. (2) The plaintiff is an allottee of leasehold rights of shed No. B-70/. 3. New Lawrance Road Industrial Complex Delhi under Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation, for short DSIDC. The area of the shed is 80' x 20' shown as bach in the site plan attached to the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 to 5 are the partners. The defendants approached the plaintiff and represented that they were constrained to vacate the premises at Tri Nagar, where the business of manufacturing of plastic goods was being carried on but no suitable alternative site was available immediately to them and requested the plaintiff to accommodate them for a short period by way of temporary arrangement. The defendants promised to vacate the shed within a couple of months. Believing th...
Babu Lal and ors. Vs. Satya Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT345
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the eviction order dated April 21, 1986, passed by Shri G.D. Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order in arguments only on two points; firstly, that the legal heirs of deceased tenant Bhagwan Dass were not sought to be imp leaded as respondents in the eviction petition pending before the Additional Rent Controller, hence, the eviction petition should be deemed to have abated; secondly that is has not been proved from the evidence brought on the record by the respondent that the premises in question had been let out only for residential purposes. Counsel for the petitioners was frank enough not to challenge the findings of the Additional Rent Controller with regard to the respon...
Cyanamid India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC13Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), disposed of five appeals filed before him against the five orders-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat. By these five orders-in-original, the Assistant Collector rejected refund claims in respect of five amounts as specified in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 2 of the order-in-appeal. Out of the two appeals filed before us, appeal No. ED/SB/2182/84-C relates to refund claim for Rs. 1,78,774.86 in respect of (i) Acromycin capsules, (ii) Acromycin Eye & Ear Ointment 3.5 gm., (iii) Acromycin eye ear oil suspension, (iv) Acromycin Intravenous 250 mg., (v) Acromycin Top ointment 14.2 gm. and (vi) Acromycin Soluble Tablets for the period from 10.5.1977 to 7.7.1977. Appeal No. ED/SB/2192/84-C relates to refund claim for Rs. 1,68,633.42 in respect of (i) Hetrazan Tablets and (ii) Caricide Tablets for the period from 10.5.1977 to 7.7.1977.2. The facts of the case in brief are that ...
New Great Eastern Spg. and Wvg. Co. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC584Tri(Delhi)
1. Since a common question of interpretation of Notification 172/72, dated 24-7-1972 as amended arises in all these appeals, a common order is being passed.2. Short question involved in these cases is whether the waste yarn falling under various Tariff Item No. 18A of Central Excise Tariff as it stood then arising in the weaving department after manufacture of the yarn in the spinning department would be covered by the exemption Notification 172/72, dated 24-7-1972 or not. The lower authorities have contended that the cotton waste yarn arising in the weaving department after manufacture of yarn in the spinning department would not be covered by the said notification.3. The learned consultant for the appellant, on the other hand, contends that the notification covers all types of waste yarn (hard waste) including cotton waste yam whether arising before spinning or after spinning. The notification does not make a distinction between the types of wastes arising before spinning or after s...
Unival Surgical Traders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC187
1. Being dissatisfied with the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 as amended, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. - 2. Factual backdrop: M/s. Unival Surgical Traders, Bombay, appellants herein filed a Bill of Entry No. 370/18-11 -1986 for the clearance of 50,000 sets of goods declared as "Hakko Brand Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for long term use - Infusion Set" claiming release of the goods under Appendix 6 of AM 1985-88 Policy. They also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 as amended by Notification No. 367/86-Cus., dated 24-6-1986. It appears that the department felt that the imported item Is not 'Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for long term use' but only "Scalp Vein Set' which does not find a mention In the Notification for life saving drugs. As a sequel thereof a show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the goods in question be not confiscated and penalty be not imposed was Iss...
Collector of Customs Vs. Babulal Bros.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC316Tri(Delhi)
1.This order disposes of the appellant-Collector of Customs, Bombay application for condonation of delay.2. According to the Date Chart accompanying the affidavit filed in support of the application, the impugned order was received in the Customs House on 3.4.1986. The appeal therefore, should have been presented to the Tribunal by 3.7.1986. The appeal was however, presented in the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal on 24.11.1986. It is thus barred by limitation by 4 months and 21 days. The Date Chart accompanying the affidavit tiled in support of the application gives the following material datesReceipt of order-in-appeal No. S/49-753/83 CL/VLdated 25.3.86 in the Custom House 3.4.1986The matter regarding pending claim brought to thenotice of concerned Group by Assistant Collector/Refunds 28.7.1986Efforts were made to trace out the file in the Group. from 28.7.1986 toThe clerk concerned was also called on Saturday to 20.8.1986trace our the tile.Group for order of reconstruction of fi...
income-tax Officer Vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD195(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assesses are directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi dated 2-9-1985 relating to the assessment year 1982-83. The solitary ground taken in the appeal projects the following grievance: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the CIT(A) erred in allowing accumulation Under Section 11(2).2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the revenue emanating from this ground, we bring into focus the entire factual backdrop of the case, which is as under: 3. This is a case of a Trust which has been given the benefits of Section 11 in the earlier assessment years. The assessee-trust filed the return for the year under appeal on 28th August, 1982 declaring a deficit of Rs. 34,167. The Income-tax Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, inter alia, examined the applicability of the provisions of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Income-tax Act in relation to the assessment of the ...
B.C. Mody Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT18; 1988(17)ECC250; 1988(36)ELT475(Del)
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This is a writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash order dated April 12, 1979, made by the respondent under Section III(D) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner No. 1 is eligible export house and holds an eligibility certificate for products of the following group : (a) Engineering goods : (b) Chemicals and allied products; and (c) Fish and fish products. Under the scheme of promotion of exports and for granting eligibility certificates of a particular product group to an eligible export house, the petitioners claimed that they are entitled to claim transfer of license issued in favor of registered exporters in their own name and substitute the item of import as per column IV in in Section II of Volume II of Import Trade Control Policy of a particular product group of which the export house has eligibility certificate as per para 12(1) Section I Part C of Red Book Vol. II pages 22-23 of Import...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »