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.
M.K. Fisheries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT408TriDel
1. Facts of the case are that the appellants herein imported two consignments of White Cardboard and cleared the goods duty free under Notification No. 117/78 (as amended) through Madras Port. They imported the goods under the scheme known as Advance Licensing Scheme and the Cardboard was to be used for the purpose of packing of frozen shrimps cuttle fish etc. and exported outside the country. The case was decided by the Collector of Customs, Cochin because he felt that the conditions of the Advance Licensing Scheme have been violated by the appellants herein.2. Learned Advocate for the appellants has raised a preliminary question of jurisdiction that the Collector of Customs, Cochin has no jurisdiction in the matter since the goods have been imported through Madras Port and an undertaking has been executed by them with the Collector of Customs, Madras. Proper authority for deciding the issue whether the conditions of Advance Licensing Scheme have been violated or not, according to th...
Standard Industrial Engineering Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT196TriDel
1. There are two orders in these two appeals : one is order-in-original No. 10/85, dated 30-9-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur and the other, order-in-original No. 7/85, dated 27-7-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Guntur.2. The dispute is the same in both the cases. The appellants, M/s.Standard Industrial Engineering made what the Central Excise say were goods viz. purlins, trusses, rafters bracings etc. from MS plates, channels, angles, rounds, supplied to them by another person. The department say that the trusses, purlins, bracings were all goods assessable under Item 68, because they were fabricated from the angles, MS plates, channels etc. and that in the fabrication, the finished goods have come to acquire new names, characters and uses and that the processing constituted a manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for M/s. Standard Industrial argued th...
Rajdev Engineering Works Vs. Delhi Development Authorities
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)ARBLR241(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT197; 1988RLR421
N.C. Kochhar, J. (1) Delhi Development Authority (the respondent) bad awarded the contract for internal electrification of 201 dwelling units, Phase Ii in Asian Games Village Complex, Shri Fort, New Delhi to M/s. Rajdev Engineering Works .(the petitioner). Agreement No. 4/PE/AGD VII/E/80-81 was executed between the parties. This agreement was governed by an arbitration clause. The disputes having arisen, the .Engineer Member of the respondent referred them to the sole arbitration of Shri M.P. Gandhi, Superintending Engineer (Electrical) of the respondent (the arbitrator), who entered upon the reference and made his award dated 19th July, 1985. (2) On an application having been filed by the petitioner (Suit No. 1443-A/85), direction were issued to the arbitrator and consequently the award was filed in court. The respondent filed objections (I.A. 1180/86) challenging the award in respect of items 2,4,6,8,9 and 10 on the grounds that the arbitrator had not given reasons in support of his ...
R.C. Choudhary Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT161
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 16th February 1988 directing the petitioner to deposit 50 per cent of the disputed bill of Rs. 10, 672-45p within 15 days from the date of the order failing which, it was directed, that the stay order shall stand vacated. This Court by order dated 1st March 1988 directed that notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted be issued to the respondent returnable for 4th May 1988 and further ordered that meanwhile, telephone No. 7210504 will not be disconnected. On 4th May 1988 no one was present on behalf of the respondent inspire of the service of the notice and the court directed that record of the trial Court be sent for and listed the case for today. Again no one is present on behalf of respondent. Accordingly, I proceed to judgment in absence of the respondent. (2) The case of the petitioner is that Telephone No. 637174 was installed at East of Kailash, New Delhi, which w...
Abdul Rehman Jumakhan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)Crimes537; 35(1988)DLT140
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This judgment shall also dispose Criminal Writ Petition No. 530/87 (Sh. Sattar Usman Wadiwala v. Union of India & Ors.) as both these petitions raise common questions of fact and law. On April 22, 1987 Sh. Abdul Rehman Jumakhan (petitioner in Crl. W. 529/87) and Sh. Sattar Usman Wadiwala (petitioner in Cri. W. No. 530/87) arrived at Calcutta Airport from Hong Kong via Bangkok. They were intercepted by the Intelligence Officers of the Custom. Their person and baggage were searched. On personal search Indian currency amounting to Rs. 10,000.00 was recovered from the possession of each of them. No contraband item was recovered from their baggage. However, after protracted interrogation both of them confessed that they had secreted contraband gold bars inside their rectum, Thereafter Sattar Usman Wadiwala ejected through his anal passage three packets containing six gold bars of 10 tolas each. Similarly Abdul Rehman Jumakhan ejected through his anal passage three packets ...
Hindustan Equipment Engg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC625Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Factual backdrop : M/s. Hindustan Equipment Engineering Co., appellants herein and M/s. Krishna & Co. are associate firms (the sole proprietor of the former firm that is to say, appellants firm has a 50% partnership share in the latter firm). It is the case of the department that the appellants imported a consignment of 12 cases of Synchroniser Cones and presented for its clearance licence No. 0314617, dated 6-1-1982 stood in the name of M/s. Chandiramani, Delhi and 2028886, dated 21-1-1981 stood In the name of M/s. Krishna & Co. The unit price for the Synchroniser Cones was shown In the import document at US $ 3.49 per piece. The importers produced two telex messages exchanged between Shri S.N. Goenka of M/s. Krishna & Co. and M/s. For Export.M/s. For Export has agreed to supply M/s. Krishna & Co. the goods at the price of US $ 3.69 CIF each provided...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. General Engineering Servicing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT86TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the orders of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents undertook structural steel work and AC sheeting work in one of the units of Andhra Pradesh State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Factories and they completed 2391 Sq. M. of AC sheeting work as well as AC water gutters and down-take pipes in the sugar factory. The respondents took the following pleas before the lower authority :- (i) They have been doing the installation work only and no fabrication is involved and the installation work is not assessable to duty. (ii) They have been attending to AC shuttering work for the construction of house sheds. It amounts to immovable property and that no duty will be attracted by goods pertaining to immovable property. (iii) The AC guttering work undertaken by them do not come under the purview of Section 2(f) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.3. The findings of the original authority in regard to th...
Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT614TriDel
1. The point of dispute is the assessment of aluminium dross and skimmings. The department assessed the dross and skimmings under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff because they held that "aluminium dross losses its identity with the raw materials in the course of its production and emerges as a new and different product having a distinctive name, character or use". They held that since the dross is sold and saleable, this test of marketability places it in the category of goods and since it is manufactured during the production of aluminium sheets, it would fall under Item 68.2. The learned counsel for M/s. Hindustan Aluminium submitted that this Tribunal had held in several judgments that dross and skimmings are not goods and, therefore, not excisable.3. The learned counsel for the department, however, opposes the freedom from excisability of dross and skimmings. He argued that all the Tribunal's order of the past were based on the Bombay High Court judgment 1980 E.L.T. 146 re: In...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Windsor Foods Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC669Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufactured biscuits. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether the cost of corrugated boxes, in which the biscuits were packed for sale, should be included in the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of Central Excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The period of controversy is from February, 1982 to July, 1982.2. As regards the manner of packing of the biscuits, we reproduce below from paragraph (3) of the department's counter affidavit dated 9-5-1988. The respondents have accepted these facts as correct during the hearing before us today: "The biscuits are initially wrapped in a glassine/PP/waxed wrapper and then packed in air tight pouches or printed waxed paper. These packets are packed In poly bags and such poly bags are packed in corrugated boxes. Out of some 36 varieties of biscuits only nine varieties are being packed in poly bags and only Windsor Glucose biscuits meant for local market are supplied in poly b...
Prem Kumari Khanna Vs. S.B. Noronah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT255
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This litigation has a chequered history but for the purposes of this petition it is not necessary to give the details of all the litigation except to briefly state few facts. The premises in dispute were let out by the petitioner to the respondent under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent The Control Act (hereinafter called 'Act') for the first time in the year 1968 for a period of three years and after the expiry of said period, there were also subsequent lettings each time under Section 21 of the Act. The respondent remained in continuous possession. However, in the year 1977 the petitioner moved execution petition before the Rent Controller seeking possession of the premises. This Court directed that the petitioner be put into possession. The Supreme Court by its celebrated judgment reported in 15(1979) Dlt (SC) 30 S-B. Noronah v.Prem Kumari Khanna, set aside the order passed by this Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Additional Rent Controller...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »