Delhi Court July 1990 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.
Shivaji Prabhudas Bhatia Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC97Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri S.P. Singh, learned Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent. Shri Chandrasekharan has stated that the facts are exactly similar in these appeals and hence he will address common arguments for all the appeals. He has taken up Appeal No. C/424/90-A filed by Shri Shivaji Prabhudas Bhatia and Appeal No.C/358/90-A filed by Shri Haren P. Choksey for arguments and has adopted the same arguments to the other appeals.2. The learned advocate has argued that Shri Shivaji Prabhudas Bhatia, Shri Kamlesh Zaverilal Gandhi and Dr. (Mrs.) Ulupi A. Choksi imported one 'Honda Accord' car each. The cars were imported under Transfer of Residence Rules. Customs clearance permit was also produced.3. In respect of the car imported by Shri Shivaji Prabhudas Bhatia-, Bill of Entry for clearance of the car was filed on 11-11-1988. Value declared in the Bill of Entry was Rs. 70,000/-. In the Bill of Entry the car...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: (1993)(46)LC512Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 3512/88-BCH dated 13.10.1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The issue involved in this case is whether SBR latex is eligible for exemption or not under Notification No. 82/86 dated 17.2.1986 as amended.3. The appellants M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd., imported SBR latex. It was described in the Bill of Entry as well as in the Supplier's invoice as 'Synthetic' Rubber (SBR latex). They claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 82/86-Cus dated 17.2.1986 as amended. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that said Notification was not applicable to Styrene-Butadiene Rubber as the same was excluded from its purview by observing that term Styrene butadiene rubber mentioned in (1A) of the said notification was used in the generic sense and hence it covers all sorts of Styrene butadiene rubber. This was confirmed in appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), ...
British Physical Laboratories Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC628Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. E/2540/84-D. - This appeal arises from the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the demand of duty on blank cassette tapes cleared by the appellants for further use in the manufacture of recorded cassette tapes within their factory for the period from 5-3-1983 to 9-7-1983 and rejecting the request for grant of proforma credit for the purpose of adjustment in RG-23, Part II. The appellants manufacture recorded video cassette tapes for which they first import video magnetic tapes in Pancake form falling under T.I. 59(5) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and plastic covers falling under T.I. 68. The assembly of the two results in formation of a blank video cassette tape falling under T.I. 59(5). Subsequently they are used for recording video programs and duty is collected under T.I. 59(5) as T.V. image and sound recording media falling un...
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. P.C. Agarwal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT124TriDel
1. The applicant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur has proposed the following alleged questions of law said to have arisen out of Order No. A/438/89-NRB dated 31-10-1989 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. C/3518/87-NRB filed by the respondents Shri P.C. Agarwal against the present applicant - "1. What had prevented the Respondent from placing on the record of Appeal, the Show Cause Notices issued Whether the apprisal of the results of enquiries and investigations as also all the evidence on record militates against the version of the Respondent 2. Whether a party can hold out goods as "MADE FROM GERMANY" conveying the imported nature of ingredient to the public at large but take a different stand in the Departmental proceedings 3. Whether or not the reliance could be placed on shifting nature of defence pleas from time to time made by the Respondent 4. Whether or not the story of the defence is false in view of the BOGUS BILLS of non-existent firms and of untraceable p...
Girija Prashad Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT228; 1990(19)DRJ145
P.N. Nag, J.(1) The petitioner, Shri Girija Prashad, through this petition has challenged the impugned order of detention dated 12th December, 1989 passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and also engaging in transporting smuggled goods, under Section 3(1) to the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The Petitioner appears to have been involved .and arrested in a criminal case regarding seizure of foreign marked gold by the Customs authorities and has been lodged in the Central Prison, Patna. (3) The impugned order.has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. However, the principal ground taken by him is that order of detention was passed on 12th December, 1989 and was served on the petitioner on 15th December. 1989 in the Central Prison, Patna. He was served impugned order,...
R.P. Sharma and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT241; II(1990)DMC390; 1990(19)DRJ160
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This revision petition has been brought under Sections 397 & 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking quashment of the order dated July 22, 1982, of a Metropolitan, Magistrate, New Delhi, by which the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners to the maintainability of the complaint filed under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were negatived. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the complaint was barred by limitation having been presented beyond one years of commission of the offence and secondly, earlier the complaint was stayed till proper sanction was to be obtained and no consent of the Magistrate had been obtained under Section 300(5) of the Code for presenting a fresh complaint and thus, the said complaint was not maintainable. Lastly, it has been urged that the Magistrate had not given any sound reasons for condoning the delay made in filing the said complaint....
Harjit Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT224; 1990(19)DRJ136
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Rule D B. (2) The present, petition of Harjit Singh is for issuance of an appropriate writ of certiorari for quashing the order of Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) ordering the registration of the petitioner as a bad character bundle 'B', under the Punjab Police Rules, applicable to Delhi, and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to carry on his business and not to call him at the Police Station at odd hours. (3) The case of the petitioner is that be is residing with his brothers in Gandhi Nagar and is engaged in the business of readymade garments in the name and style of Kuki dresses. He is actively associated with the social activities of the area for the last many years. He is assessed to income-tax and was issued a gun license on the recommendation of the area police in the year 1984. He is also holding a passport. (4) His case is that on account of his social activities, he incurred ...
Kalliyathu Kittapan Chandresekharan Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT281
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The challenge in this petition is to the order of detention dated 6th September, 1989 made by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(l)(i) and 3(l)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directing the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling of gold and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold. The challenge is also to the validity of the order of Declaration dated 10'th October, 1989, which has the effect of extending the period of detention of the petitioner. (2) The main ground put forth in support of the petition is that the petitioner was not informed about his constitutional rights under Article 22(5) to make a representation against the order of declaration which, learned counsel, submits not only invalidates the declaration order but has also the effect of invalidating the order of detention as the confirmation was ma...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shankar Novelties Glass
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC571Tri(Delhi)
1. One show cause notice No. 198/14/198/81-CX/V dated 16-2-1982 was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of India to the respondents M/s. Shankar Novelties Glass Industries, Firozabad, U.P. under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 as it then existed. The show cause notice was issued on review of the order-in-appeal No. 61-66/KNP/CE/81 dated 17-8-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The Appellate Collector disposed of six appeals filed before him by the aforesaid common order-in-appeal. The review proceedings started by issue of the above show cause notice stood transferred to this Tribunal for being disposed of as an appeal after the Tribunal was set up w.e.f.11-10-1982. As the Appellate Collector disposed of six appeals by one order, according to the practice prevailing in this Tribunal, the appellant filed five Supplementary Appeals alongwith the COD applications. The COD applications were heard and th...
Collector of Customs Vs. Empire Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC202
1. The respondents herein imported a consignment of Gredag ML-12 Glass Mould Lubricant and Cildag Colloidal Graphite in oil. On test the goods were found to be in the form of black coloured viscous liquid composed of graphite and mineral oil, the mineral oil component exceeding 70% by weight. The goods were assessed under Heading 2710.00 of the Customs Tariff read with Notification 115/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 and Heading 2710.99 of CET. According to the importers, the goods were lubricating oil classifiable under Heading 2710.60 of the CET for the purpose of levy of additional duty and also eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification 112/87. The Assistant Collector assessed the goods for the purpose of C.E. classification under Heading 2710.99 and did not extend the benefit of Notification 112/87. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the importers holding the goods to be lubricating oil on the ground that the flash point of the imports exceeds 94%. He...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »