Delhi Court July 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.
Monica Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC622Tri(Delhi)
1. By this appeal the appellants have challenged the ITC Classification ordered by the Additional Collector of Customs, Import Cargo, New Delhi in respect of 'Transistors 2SD 866B" which are components of colour TV.The Additional Collector has observed that the invoice and packing specification indicate the imported Transistors as "2 SD 866B - Transistor Collector to Emitter Voltage above 100 volts", but the verification of the catalogue indicated that the Vceo is 100 volts only. He has observed that only the Transistor of Vceo above 100 volts falls under OGL As the Vceo of the imported transistors was 100 volts only, these are not covered by OGL He has further observed that there are two parameters in respect of the Transistors, namely, Vceo and Vces. Vceo represents the sustaining point whereas the Vces represents the break down point. According to him the policy is only with reference to Vceo and in the present case it is clear from the invoice that the Vceo was about 100 volts and...
Nagabushanam Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT507TriDel
1. This matter relates to classification of certain special components which, appellants state, have been manufactured solely on the orders of the buyers, namely, M/s. B.E.M.L., K.G.F. as per their drawings and specifications. It is also contended by the appellants that these are not sold in the market. It is stated that fastening and load bearing are the essential functions of these items, that these are components of mining and project machinery and, that therefore, they should fall under the residuary Item No. 68 CET.2. The factual aspects, as stated above, are admitted by the department. However they have taken the stand that the impugned goods are "ultimately used as fasteners", thereby qualifying for assessment under Tariff Item 52.3. None appears on behalf of the appellants who have requested that their appeal may be decided on the basis of their written submissions.We have heard Shri G.V. Naik, Joint Chief Departmental Representative on behalf of the department.4. The learned ...
Reliance Cellulose Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT399TriDel
1. Under notice dated 18-5-1983 the appellants M/s. Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd., were called up to show cause why the 3 products (1) bleached cotton linters, (2) cellulose powder and (3) micro-crystalline cellulose powder ought not be classified under Item-68 CET and duty demanded on removal thereof. The appellants had shown these products as non-excisable in their classification list. The appellants replied denying excisability. On adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 24-9-1983 ordered classification under Item-68 CET. This was confirmed, on appeal, by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 12-3-1984. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri V. Jogayya Sarma, Advocate for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty for the Department.3. The main contention for the appellants, before the lower authorities as well as before us, has been that raw cotton linters are merely cleaned and impurities removed therefrom to obtain bleached cotton...
Devender Lal Thanjee and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT25; 1988(15)DRJ306
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the memo dated 27-2-1987 issued by the Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority whereby the petitioners were informed that the allotment in their favor of shop/stall No. 16/3 in commercial complex at Naraina, Industrial Area constructed on plots Nos. 15-16 had been cancelled and the earnest money stood forfeited as they failed to deposit the balance premium within the stipulated period.(2) The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the bid of the petitioner was accepted on 16-7-1986 and they had deposited 25% of the bid amount at the spot. According to the terms of auction, the balance amount had to be deposited within three days of the receipt of the demand letter. The demand letter is dated 22-8-1986 but was admittedly served on the petitioners on 13-9-1986. The amount was deposited in terms of the demand on 10-10-1986 i.e. within the 30 days of the receipt of the demand letter. Th...
Union of India Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT395; 1989(2)SLJ74(Delhi)
Leela Seth, J. (1) By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, seeks the quashing of the order dated 18th October, 1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi in Lca No. 188/83. (2) There are 47 writ petitions and though the dates and amounts claimed may differ, the points in issue are the same. The impugned order has been passed in each case by Mr. 0.P. Singla and his conclusions and reasons for arriving at them are identical. Consequently, this judgment will cover all the cases. (3) The petitioner started working with the Northern Railway on 26th September, 1977. ' ''was employed as a casual labourer under chief Singal and Telecommunication Engineer (Construction), Northern Railway (to be referred to hereinafter in short as 'CSTE (Con)'). He was employed for more than 120 days and consequently claimed Rs. 575. 15P as balance payment for ...
Gopal Dass and ors. Vs. Shiv Charan Dass Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT21
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 24th February 1987 whereby the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 18th September 1986. (2) The respondent Shiv Charan Dass filed a petition for eviction of the appellants under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act in respect of premises bearing no. 4234, Gali Mochian, Paharganj, New Delhi let out to the appellants. Since the premises were situated in the slum area, the respondent obtained permission of the Competent Authority under Section 19(l)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance Act) before filing the eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that the premises which consisted of two rooms, one kitchen, latrine, open court-yard and a Chhajja o...
Asha Dass and ors. Vs. Dunlop India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT100; 1988(15)DRJ256; 1988RLR484
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Arguments have been heard for disposing of both the civil revision petitions finally. Both these petitions arise out of the order dated June 9, 1987, of Shri G.P. Thareja, Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi by which he has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s. Dunlop India Limited (hereinafter described as 'the tenant') against an order dated May 16, 1987, of Shri D.S. Sidhu, Sub-Judge, on an application moved by Smt. Asha Dass & others (hereinafter described as 'the landlords') for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a suit brought by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the tenant from carrying out any additions/alterations or construction work in any part of the tenanted premises i.e. part of property No. 27-A, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. (2) The tenant is in possession of ground floor portion of the said building Along with garage, a driver room, four servant quarters, at the rental of Rs.3,000.00 per m...
Wiltech India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC222
1. The appellants manufacture plastic razors. These razors are made of plastic and iron rod in the stem of the razor. The point to be decided is whether in view of this rod the razor can be said to be an Article of plastic eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.182/82-C.E., dated 11.5.82, which is reproduced below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts articles made of plastics, falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon: (a) Such articles are produced out of artificial resins or plastic materials or cellulose esters and ethers in any form falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 15A of the said First Schedule on which the duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as the case may be, has already bee...
Haryana Plywood Industries Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC1Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals have been filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture the following goods namely - and claimed the assessment of the same under Tariff Item 4410.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and filed two classification lists bearing Nos.46/86 effective from 1.3.1986 and No. 83/86 effective from 1.4.1986 for approval by the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. Classification under Tariff Item 4410.90 as claimed by the appellants was approved.The appellants however, filed another classification list No. 108/86 to be effective from 2.4.1986 and in this the classification of the goods was changed by Jurisdictional Assistant Collector to 4406.90. The appellants paid duty under protest. In the subsequent price lists filed by them, they themselves showed the classification of the goods under Item 4406.90 based on the earlier approval of the Assistant Collector and therein a...
Mridul Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC217
1. In this case the dispute relates to classification of glass tiles manufactured by the appellants. The claim of the appellant is that the goods are correctly classifiable under Item "23-D Mosaic Tiles" of the Central Excise Tariff whereas the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad has classified the goods under Tariff Item 23-A as "glass and glassware". The Assistant Collector has held that glass tiles manufactured by the appellants are made of glass and not made from glass and as such It is a glassware. He has also held that unicolour tiles are not mosaic tiles as the mosaic tiles come into existence at site after coloured tiles are set in according to design.By the Impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi has upheld the classification decided by the Assistant Collector.The Collector (Appeals) has held that after Tariff Item 23-D has been made inapplicable to the glass tiles manufactured by the appellants, the same should automatically be taken ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »