Delhi Court August 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.
Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC358; 1988(19)LC131(Delhi); 1989(39)ELT211(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The main question involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Central Board of Excise and Customs could invest in the Director (Audit) in the Directorate General of Inspection and Audit (Customs & Central Excise), New Delhi, the powers of a Collector of Central Excise for the purposes of Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the assign to him any pending cases for investigation and adjudication. 2. The National Tobacco Co. of India Limited was incorporated and was an existing company at the relevant time within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Calcutta. It was engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes and smoking mixtures. It had a factory at Agarpara in the State of West Bengal and another factory at Biccavole in the State of Andhra Pradesh. With effect from March 1, 1977 it merged with M/s. Duncan's Agro Industries Limited, the petiti...
Avinash Chander Mehra Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ1
H.C. Goel, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order of his detention and his continued detention as passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. I, on June 26, 1987 under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting smuggled goods namely, gold. The facts and circumstances leading to the passing of the order of detention as stated in the grounds of detention are that on April 21, 1987 one Harpal Singh of Amritsar delivered 100 gold biscuits to the detenu at the residence of one Sukhvinder Siagh alias Sukha of Amritsar for delivery to one Saleem in Delhi, which the detenu carried to Delhi on the night between April 21/22, 1987 by train. The detenu on arrival at Delhi met Saleem. Saleem stayed near a petrol pump near A...
Collector of Customs Vs. Gufic Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC73Tri(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals involve a common issue and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The common issue involved is whether the consignments of Propylene Glycol USP imported by M/s. Gufic Private Ltd., Bombay (the appellants in Appeal No. C/2809/87-C and the respondents in Appeal No.C/1323/86-C) were eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 234/82, dated 1-11-1982.3. In the matter covered by Appeal No. C/1323/86-C the Collector (Appeals) found in favour of the importing company and in the other Appeal No. C/2809/87-C, another Collector (Appeals) found against them.The Collector and the Importer respectively being aggrieved by these orders have filed the present appeals.4. We have heard Shri R.G. Sheth, Advocate, for M/s. Gufic Private Ltd., and Shri C.V. Durghayya, DR, for the Collector.5. Central Excise Notification No. 234/82, dated 1-11-1982 exempts from the whole of duty of excise leviable on inter alia - "All...
Indian Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC79
1. The appellants M/s. Indian Tube Co. Ltd. subject steel pipes and tubes to the process of pickling for removal of the scale formation thereform. The hot rolled strilps were also being subjected to similar process. For the purpose of pickling, sulphuric acid is diluted with water and kept in a tank. The pipes, tubes etc. are kept in cradles and then dipped into the diluted acid so that the removed of the scale is done uniformly on the inner as well as outer surfaces. The steel strips fitted in cages are also similarly rotated inside the tank. After the acid had been used for a while in this manner it loses its effectiveness and is thereafter removed. According to the appellants removal was by way of supply of the same to another concern by name M/s. Cynamides & Pigments. No charge were being collected therefor and in fact the appellants paid the transportation charges themselves. This was done to avoid the cost of neutralisation without which this dangerous effluent could not be ...
Unique Industries Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC36
1. In this case, appellants have been charged with contravention of Rules 174,9(1), 52-A, 173-B, 173-C, 173-D, 173-F & 173-G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for allegedly manufacturing, with the aid of power, steel furniture valued at Rs. 4,29,750/- during the year 1971 -72 and valued at Rs. 5,96,973/- during the year 1972-73 (upto 4.1.1973), without applying for a Central Excise licence and clearing the same without payment of Central Excise duty and without maintaining production and clearance records.2. Appellants have in the first instance contested that the impugned products were covered under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 40 on the ground that the goods in question are supplied by them to hospitals and are known in common parlance as hospital equipment and not as hospital furniture. Appellants also took the stand that the goods were not ordinarily manufactured with the aid of power. It is admitted that power was being used for drilling holes in respect of certain pieces at th...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Customs, Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC58
1.The issue in this matter relates to classification of tool cabinets manufactured by M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. These were manufactured by Mechanical Work Zone of the unit and then transferred to the Machine Shop under the cover of factory's internal gate passes.The department's case is that the tool cabinets are moveable articles made for placing on the floor, and, having all the essential characteristics of furniture, they are liable to duty.2. The matter was adjudicated by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madhya Pradesh, who held that the impugned goods were classifiable under Central Excise Tariff item 40 and not under item 68 ibid, as claimed by the appellant company. He also observed that in spite of categorical directions of the local Central Excise Officer, the appellant company failed to take out licence and to pay duty.Accordingly, the learned Additional Collector confiscated the 60 pieces of tool cabinets allowing the appellant company the option to redeem t...
Ex-naik Kanhiya Lal Pathak Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ405
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner Ex Naik Kanhiya Lal Pathak, challenges the conviction awarded to him by Summary Court Martial vide order dt. 15th April, 1986. The petitioner at the relevant time was a non-commissioned officer holding the rank of a Naik. He was charged for an offence under Section 40(a) of the Army Act. (hereinafter called the Act). The charge framed by his Commanding Officer Lt. Colonel M.C. Sebastian on 1st April, 1986 reads as follows :- 'USING CRIMINAL FORCE TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER In that he, Army Act Section 40(a) at field on 06 April, 1986, at about 1030 hrs, caught the collar, pushed and hit with his right hand IC-25372W Major Ravi Gupta, Officer Commanding of his unit.' 2. The petitioner admitted his guilt and made the following statement before his Commanding Officer who was holding the Summary Court Martial. 'I admit my guilt, I shall never commit such a mistake again. I am prepared to apologias to my OC, Maj. Gupta and I shall give in...
Vidya Wati and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas813(Delhi); 1989CriLJ1047; 1988(3)Crimes623; 36(1988)DLT125; 1988(37)ELT341(Del)
H.C. Goel, J.1. This is a revision petition under sections 397, 399/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the charge framed against the three petitioners by Shri P. S. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by his order dated May 25, 1987, for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The police of police station, Civil Lines, Delhi, had filed the challan against seven accused namely, Pinky Builders, a partnership firm, the three petitioners who are the partners of that firm, one Gian Singh, driver of the truck, Surender Singh and Girraj Shukla, two alleged salesmen of the said firm. The prosecution case stated in brief is that on July 11, 1983, at about 3.50 p.m., one truck bearing No. DEL-7232 which was being driven by Gian Singh, accused, was intercepted by the officers of the Food and Supplies Department of the Delhi Administration and accused Girraj Shukla was sitting by the side of the driver. 100 bag...
Kanhiya Lal Pathak Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ405b
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this petition, the petitioner Ex. Naik Kanhiya Lal Pathak, challenges the conviction awarded to him by Summary Court Martial vide order dated 15th April, 1986. The petitioner at the relevant time was a non-commissioned officer holding the rank of a Naik. He was charged for an offence under Section 40(a) of the Army Act (hereinafter called the Act). The charge framed by his Commanding Officer Lt. Colonel M.C. Sebastian on 1st April, 1986 reads as follows :- 'USINGCRIMINAL Force To His Superior Officer in that he. Army Act Section 40(a) at filed on 06 April 1986, at about 1030 hrs, caught the collar, pushed and hit with his right hand IC-25372W Major Ravi Gupta, Officer Commanding of his unit,'(2) The petitioner admitted his guilt and made the following statement before his Commanding Officer who was holding the Summary Court Martial: 'I admit my guilt. I shall never commit such a mistake again. I am prepared to apologies to my Oc, Maj. Gupta and I shall give i...
D. NavIn Chandra and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC1
1. This appeal is against Order No. M/S-250/84-C, S-5-Test-341/84-C, S-10-91/84-C, S-10-92/84-C and S-5-Test-340/84-C, dated 12-8-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported 4 consignments of goods described variously as Paratfinic Rubber Plasticizers and Plastic Oil 350 USP (Paraffinic Plasticizer).They sought clearance of the goods against five advance licences contending that the goods were covered by entry 254 in Appendix 5 of the Import Trade Control Policy for the period April 83 to March 84.The said entry read as:- "Paraffinic/Naphthenic/Aromatic Rubber Plasticizers". All these licences were valid for Import of items falling under the said Appendix 5 of AM 83-84 Policy excluding Items figuring in Appendix 2i3 of the relevant policy. In the case of Bill of Entry IGM No. 2748 Item No. 312 and Bill of Entry IGM No. 2866 Item No.28, goods were released on a test-cum-ITC Bond. The claim of the appellants ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »