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.
Kothari Industrial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC14
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector Central Excise (Appeals). Madras. The point that falls for consideration is whether Barium Carbonate which is used in the process of manufacture of caustic soda is eligible for the benefit of Notification 201/79 as amended by the 105/82-CE dated 28-2-1982. In terms of this Notification, all excisable goods in the manufacture of which goods falling under Item 68 of the GET have been used as raw-materials or component parts are exempted from payment of duty to the extent of the duty paid on the raw-material and components subject to the other provisions of the notification. The barium carbonate in the instant case is stated to be for purification of the brine solution and which after purification is electrolysed resulting in the production of the caustic soda. The issue before the lower authorities was whether barium carbonate can be said to have been used for the manufacture of caustic soda as raw-material.The Collector (Appeals) ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT619TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents had filed a refund claim and the same was rejected as time-barred. The Collector (Appeals) held after examination that the claim was not hit by limitation and directed that refund amount be determined in terms of this Tribunal's order passed in other proceedings where a demand had been raised against the respondents.2. The relevant orders of the Tribunal were passed in Appeal Nos.940/83 and 1482/83 vide order Nos. 28 and 29/84-D [1990 (45) E.L.T. 654 (Tribunal)]. The Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur has filed the appeal against these findings of Collector (Appeals). In the narration of facts given by the Collector, he has set out the grounds of appeal which are reproduced below for experience reference :- "As would be seen from the above, the amount of Rs. 779.76 P. was paid by the party to partly meet within the total demand of Rs. 97,878.16 ...
Shakuntia Devi and ors. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas705(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT388; 1988(15)DRJ247
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Since a short question is involved in the revision petition, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the civil revision petition itself. (2) The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. l/Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. has brought a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 22,812.80 ps. against defendant No. I, a partnership firm, comprising of two partners namely Prem Nath Chopra, defendant No. 2, and Suresh Chand Jain, defendant No. 3, Smt. Kabuli Devi, defendant No. 4, was joined as a surety. (3) During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 2, Prem Nath Chopra, died on 27th August, 1983. No application was moved by the plaintiff for bringing on record the legal representatives of the said defendant. Order 30 Sub-rule (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the plaintiff not to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased/defendant No. 2, and the suit can proceed against the firm and the other partner joined as defendant ...
K.K. Girdhar Vs. M.S. Kathuria
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT225; 1988(18)ECC61; 1988(37)ELT353(Del)
H.C. Goel, J.(1) This is a petition under S. 482 Cr. D P. C. for setting aside the order dated April 29, 1988 passed by Mr. Dinesh Dayal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi granting bail to the respondent in the case punishable under S. 9(1)(a) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. The respondent was arrested in the case on April 16, 1988. He was remanded lo judicial custody up to April 18, 1988 and then up to April 29, 1988. On April 29, 1988 an application was moved on behalf of the Central Excise Department seeking further remand of the respondent for a further period of two weeks. This application was put up before Mr. Dinesh Dayal, Metropolitan Magistrate. An application for releasing the respondent on bail was then moved before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the release of the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,0001- with one surety in the like amount. The further admitted facts of the c...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Indian Iron and Steel Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC465Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal involves the question whether the demand for duty raised against the respondents and confirmed by the Assistant Collector and set aside by the Collector (Appeals) in respect of 1522.791 M.T. of ingots is sustainable or not. Before commencing his argument Shri J.N.Nigam, the learned SDR stated that by an error the department, instead of demanding duty on steel melting scrap generated during the manufacture of steel ingots, wrongly included demand for duty on ingots also. It appears that the Departmental Representative corresponded with the Collector and the Collector confirmed the error which was noted by him with regret.2. The question involved is whether the demand for duty on scrap generated during the manufacture of steel ingots is sustainable. Shri Nigam gave detailed arguments as to why the Collector (Appeals) was wrong in passing the impugned order. We are not going into the detailed reasons given by him for reasons which will be clear in the next few paragraphs.3...
Costa Foods Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT279TriDel
1. M/s. Costa Foods, Cochin-682 002 have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the Order-in-Original No. AP/INT/11/86, dated 6th April, 1987 passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Costa Foods, Cochin, had filed 31 shipping bills for the export of frozen marine products including frozen frog legs. The exporter had declared in the shipping bills (a) the exports were made in discharge of the export obligation under DEEC scheme and (b) they were not claiming drawback of duty on packing materials viz. corrugated board master cartons, duplex board inner cartons and polythene sheets. The exporters were issued an advance Licence No. P/L/0342342 dated 3.9.1983 and a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Book No. 005173, dated 12.9.1983. In part 'C'of the DEEC book, the list of materials to be imported under the scheme was shown as (1) 33 metric tonnes white card board, other than ivory board, (2) 21 metric toones of kraft paper and (3) 15 metric tonne...
L. M. L. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT131TriDel
1. In this stay petition the petitioners have prayed for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 20,78,601.30 and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/ pending hearing of the appeal and stay of recovery thereof.We have heard Shri R. Santhanam, General Manager (Legal) of the petitioners Company and Smt. v. Zutshi, SDR for the respondent Collector. Shri Santhanam has stated that the Central Excise duty on Caprolactum is exempted by Notification No. 36/85-C.E., dated 17.3.1985 as amended if such Caprolactum is produced out of nylon polymer waste by the process of recycling of such waste in India. He has also stated that under Notification No. 18/84-C.E, dated 1.3.1984 Caprolactum produced out of nylon polymer waste by the process of recycling of such waste in India was exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Santhanam has argued that the Caprolactum produced by them were out of nylon polymer waste by the process of ...
Associated Traders and 2 ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC41Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned applicants have filed three appeals as well as three slay applications which arise from a consolidated order-in-original No. S/10-83/87 SIIB-DRI/BZU/122/43/86 dated 25th January, 1988. Since the three slay applications emerge from the same order and as such the same are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. Shri A.K.S. Bedi, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the applicants states that prima facie the applicants have got a good case on merits. He has also referred to the balance-sheets of the three applicants and States that financially the applicants do not have sound position and there are losses too. He argued that the Bench should exercise its inherent powers and should also permit the release of the goods without payment of redemption fine and customs duty.3. Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, the learned junior departmental representative who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, states that the applicants have filed applications under Sect...
Dhir Singh and anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes18; 36(1988)DLT215
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this appeal, the two appellants Dm Singh and Doonger Singh who are father and son, are challenging their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered one Subhash @ Bhasi on 1st July, 1983. They are further challenging the order sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life. (2) We have gone through the record with the assistance of Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants. As we are affirming the findings, we do not consider it necessary to notice the facts of the prosecution in detail as those have been extensively dealt with by the learned trial court. The gravamen of the allegations against the appellants were that two days prior to the date of incident, there was a quarrel between Subhash (the deceased) and Doonger Singh @ Babli, who were both residents of J. J. Colony, Mangolpuri, Delhi. The deceased's mother, PW-4 Smt. Darshana has deposed to that fact in the following words :- 'TWO days prior to 1-7-83, my son...
Chittranjan Mitra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes27; 36(1988)DLT265
Malik, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the detention order passed against him on 26th of June 1987 by Shri S. K. Kohli, Joint Secretary to the Government of India,under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended).This order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in smuggling and transporting smuggled goods.This followed an incident dated 11/05/1987 when the petitioner who is a citizen of Bangia Desh was apprehended in the process of smuggling 8 gold biscuits of foreign made into this country.(2) The main ground of challenge to the order of detention is delay in the consideration of representations made by the petitioner-detent to the detaining authority as also to the CentralGovernment. Mr. Arora submits that on 25th of September1987 he made these representations which were supposed to have been decided on 21/10/1987 but the order of rejection was recorded on 26th of October 1987 and i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »