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.
Dharam Dev Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT318; 1988RLR453; 1989(1)SLJ11(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the High Court has no jurisdiction to decide this writ petition.(2) The petitioner in this petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought mandamus requiring the respondents to allot the Railway Quarter to the petitioner on over-riding priority basis so that the petitioner may be able to vacate the accommodation allotted to him from the Central Pool by the Railway Board and for also direction to the Directorate of states not to evict the petitioner from the present accommodation and requiring the petitioner to pay the penal rent in respect of the said accommodation till alternative accommodation is provided to the petitioner by the Northern Railway.(3) The petitioner is an employee of Northern Railway admitted and had been allotted a quarter by the Northern. Railway earlier and later on he went on deputation to Railway Board and he vacated the Railway Qua...
Banarsi Dass Bhandari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT25; 1988RLR445
H.C. Goel, J. (1) By this petition Banarsi Dass Bhandari. petitioner, prays for the quashing of the order of detention and the continued detention of his brother. Sat Pal Bhandari, who has been detained by the order of detention dated January 19, 1988 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. 2, under S. 3(1) read with S. 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). As per the grounds of detention on October 15, 1987 an information was received that the detenu, Sat Pal Bhandari, and his son Devinder Kumar had arranged to take delivery of some foreign marked gold at the premises No. 56, State Bank Colony, G.T. Road, Delhi. Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted a search of that premises. Nothing incriminating was, however, recovered. Soon thereafter one Hira Lal was found to have come there in a Maruti car. It was found that Hira Lal had concealed 220 foreign marked...
Griffon Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT613TriDel
1. The question arising for decision in this appeal by the importer is classification under Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of additional duty of customs of TRITHIOPARAME THOXYPHENYL PROPENE Powder (TPP Powder) - whether they fall under T.I. 14E CET Patent or Proprietary Medicines as claimed by the appellant importer or residuary Tariff Item 68 as held by the lower authorities and in the alternative whether consequent to classification under residuary Tariff Item 68 the appellants are eligible to claim benefit of exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 in respect of the goods imported.2. The appellants vide Bill of Entry imported TPP Powder - a bulk drug.There is no dispute about basic customs classification. The dispute is only about classification for purposes of additional duty as set out above. It appears that at the time of import itself the appellants claimed under classification...for additional duty under T.I. 14E but the Assistant Collector held the go...
Vidarbha Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(36)ELT508TriDel
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants were purchasing fireclay in lumps from the mines and after powdering it in machine and filled in bags were selling the same in the market. They filed a classification list No. 30/81, effective from 1-4-1981. In the said classification list under the caption "Particulars of other goods produced or manufactured and intended to be removed by the Assesses," the appellants mentioned the following "Fireclay being a produce of mines, and since it is not manufactured by us, is non-excisable." While approving the classification list the Range Superintendent held on 15-4-1981 that "Fireclay falls under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and the rate of duty shall be 8% ad valorem". Against this approval order, the appellants made representation dated 15-5-1981 to the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur challenging the classification made by the Superintendent of Central Excise under Item 68 of the Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise,...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. M.A. Paper and Card Board Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC221Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue questions the legality or correctness of order dated 28.6.84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta. By the said order the Collector (Appeals) held that respondents who were availing benefit of exemption under notification 83/83 in respect of straw board falling under 17(1) of CET and had collected 10% ad valorem plus Rs. 525 per metric ton duty from the customers but had not included the same in the value as shown in the price list as not being includible for determining liability to central excise duty in respect of clearances and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with this decision the Collector of Central Excise, Patna has presented this appeal to the Tribunal.2. At the hearing of the appeal Smt. J.K. Chander, JDR for the appellant and Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents were heard and the papers perused.3. It is seen that the respondents availed of benefit of exemption under notification 83/83-CE dated 1.3.83 for clearance ...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Formica India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC603Tri(Delhi)
1. This order disposes of the respondents preliminary objection that under Section 35E of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act, the Central Board of Excise and Customs could not direct Collector to file the present application to the Tribunal for determination of the points set out in the application.2. Before taking up the objection itself for consideration it is necessary to recite certain facts briefly. After introduction of Explanation II in Tariff Item 15A with effect from 1.3.1979 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune served notice dated 4.3.1981 on the respondents manufacturers alleging that relevant goods manufactured by them were only insulated material not identifiable as electrical insulators, insulating fittings, parts of such insulating fittings and insulatorsin commercial trade parlance and calling upon them to show cause why the goods be not classified under Tariff Item 15A(2) of Central Excise Tariff instead of Item 68 ibid. After fol...
National Radio and Electricals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC286
1. The appellants say that the integrated circuits they imported should be assessed to C.V. duty under 33AA. These are nothing but transistors, semi-conductors, diodes, etc., on a single silicon chip arranged in a required system. Under notification 25/68-CE the goods are exempted from excise duty. The learned Counsel began by reading their appeal to the Collector (Appeals) reference No. FO/A2/4518 dated 2-11-1982. It goes into great details to support their claim that integrated circuits are only arrays of several transistors, semi-conductors diodes & semi-conductor links, inseparably associated but without loosing their basic characteristics and functions as transistors and diodes and, therefore appropriately falling in item 33A (sic).2. We heard long and learned arguments from the two sides, but it would take too much time to reproduce them here. We will only examine the technical nature of the integrated circuits to see if they are indeed as claimed by the appellants, National...
Sonu Impex Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT292TriDel
1. The only question that fall for our consideration in the instant appeal are: (i) Whether the imported goods namely, Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls could be imported as packing material against product mentioned in Group 0.1 Appendix 17 of the Import and Export Policy, April, 1985 - March, 1988; and (ii) whether the imported goods merits the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 341-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 as amended.2. Factual backdrop : M/s. Sonu Impex, Delhi - appellants herein filed their Bill of Entry dated 31-12-1986 for the clearance of Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls. The said Bill of Entry was subsequently allowed to be converted into Bill of Entry for LC.L on the request of the appellants. Accordingly the appellants submitted two REP licences and claimed clearance of the imported goods as "packing materials Polypropylene" allowed against product Group 0.1 of Appendix 17 of the Import Export Policy, April, 1985 - March, 1988 and also claimed the benefit of...
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(37)ELT211TriDel
1. The issue arising for decision in this appeal is liability of the appellant to duty in respect of Carbon Electrode Paste produced during the period 1-3-1975 to 29-4-1975 and their eligibility to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 118/75, dated 30-4-1975 based on captive consumption.Raipurbyorderdated16-8-1980con-firmed the demand in respect of Carbon Electrode Paste under Tariff Item 68 for Rs. 52,683.29 P. The order was upheld in appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi by his order dated 21 -2-1983. At the Appellate stage, an application was made by the applicant - M/s. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. - a Government of India Undertaking for taking on record additional evidence. The additional evidence sought to be produced is Tenth Annual Report of the appellant which is also said to have been laid on the Table of Parliament. From para 3 of this Report, it is seen that Korba Smelter (1 st Phase) was commissioned in May, 1975. in the 9th Annual Report for t...
Sobha Singh Vs. Sant Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT341; 1988RLR563
(1) This regular second appeal has been brought against the judgment and decree dated 22nd of November 1979 passed by Mohd. Sharnim, Additional District Judge, Delhi, by which he has dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Sobha Singh, appellant, against the judgment and decree dated 5th of March 1979 passed by Shri Satnam Singh, Sub Judge Delhi, by which he decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant- appellant for recovery of possession of plot bearing No. XVI/8A/30, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi, after removal of the super-structure. A decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1, 384.62 was also passed. (2) Facts of the case are that this property vested in the custodian and that the petitioner had occupied this plot and had been granted a lease of this plot for a period of three years at the rate of Rs 37.25 per mensem as per Lease Deed a copy of which is Ex. PD. This Lease Deed is dated 23rd of January 1950. Clause 3 of the said Lease Deed reads as under :...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »