Delhi Court May 1991 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Shriram Rayons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT879TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay accepting the plea of the respondents herein that wearing rings used in absorption refrigeration machine made of graphite were classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants have stated that Section Note 2(b) to Section XVI has been read in isolation. This note should have been read with Note 1.(a) to Chapter 84 which excludes mill stones, grind stones and other articles of Chapter 68 from Chapter 84. If this was done, graphite rings would have been excluded from Chapter 84.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned counsel for the respondents herein has filed a Miscellaneous Application for taking on record additional evidence which consists of two affidavits and a letter. The argument taken is that if the goods under dispute are made of artificial graphite, they would fall under Chapter 84 and not under Chapter 68 in view of Tribunal's judgment in A...
Grand Slam International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT161TriDel
1. These twelve appeals arise out of the Order-in-Original No. 263/89 dated 6-11-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. At the outset the preliminary issue was raised in all these cases on point of jurisdiction. Their contention is that the goods were imported at Bombay Customs against a licence produced at the time of clearance and the goods were cleared after examination. Since the goods were assessed on payment of Customs duty at Bombay by following the order of assessment under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 duly passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, apparently after satisfying himself, the Delhi Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the proceedings in respect of the goods cleared at Bombay Custom House.3. The contention of the Department is that the Delhi Collector has jurisdiction since the goods were cleared fraudulently at Bombay Customs. According to Department, M/s. Casino Electronics (P) Ltd. (2nd appellant) and its Direc...
Ramesh G. Bhatia Vs. J.M. Malik, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1991
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas44(Delhi)
V.B. Bansal J.1. Mr. Ramesh G. Bhatia, petitioner, has by way of this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed that the proceedings against him pending in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in complaint Gopal Gases (P.) Ltd. v. Ramesh G. Bhatia under section 630 of the Companies Act may be quashed. 2. The material facts necessary for the disposal if this petition contained in the aforesaid complaint are as under : The complainant is a private limited company with its registered office at 38, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi, and Panna Lal Bhatia, one of the directors was authorised by the company to file the said complaint. Ramesh G. Bhatia, the accused, has been one of the directors if this company. This company was incorporated on February 26, 1990, with the object to produce gases like oxygen, acetylene, liquid oxygen, etc., and the factory is situated at Mandi Govind Ga...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Associated Producers Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ136
1. The facts giving rise to this judgment fall into a short compass. Let me recapitulate.2. On a petition by the Union of India under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) against M/s. Associated Producers Company, Penang and Mr. Abdul Wahab of Madras, Avadh Behari, J., by his order dated May 26, 1972 appointed Mr. Hardyal Hardy, a retired Chief Justice of this Court, as the sole arbitrator who entered on the reference on Sept. 12, 1972 and made his award on February 21, 1973. Whereas the award has won whole hearted approval of the Union of India, the other side, namely M/s. Associated Producers Company, Penang as well as its sole proprietor Mr. M.A.A. Wahab have found it totally unacceptable. They have thus filed separate objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act.3. On the basis of the objections raised, following issues were framed:1. Whether the objection petition has been filed within the period of limitation? OPD 2. Whether the objector was not ...
Bhartia Cutler Hammer Ltd. Vs. Avn Tubes Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: I(1993)BC472; 1995(33)DRJ672
Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S Bhartia Cutler Hammer Ltd. has filed a suit under the summary procedure of the Code of civil procedure for recovery of Rs.2.24.895 - against Avn Tubes Limited. Plaintiff has based his claim on the basis of the outstanding bills amount not paid by the defendant. The defendant had placed an order on the plaintiff company for the supply of Thyristor drive and Motors (hereinafter called the equipment). This order was placed vide letter dated 16th April, 1987 Plaintiff supplied the materials and equipments as per order which was accepted by the defendant. The equipment was installed & commissioned by the plaintiff on 22nd May, 1987, 7/9th July, 1987 and 22nd October, 1987 respectively. After the installation, the equipment is working satisfactorily. The defendant company was to furnish the sales-tax Form-C to the plaintiff company in order to get exemption for the sales-tax. Even that the defendant has failed to furnish. thereforee, the plaintiff will have to pay addit...
Modi Cement Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Del)48; 44(1991)DLT654; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)408; [1992]193ITR91(Delhi)
M.C. Jain, J. (1) Rule DB.(2) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the Agreement dated 19. i. 1987, whereunder the petitioners has agreed to bear the cost of the Txr staff, According to the petitioners, the petitioners were forced to give an unconditional acceptance of the Railway Standard Agreement Form, according to which they were required to bear the cost of Txr staff posted at petitioner no. l's siding at Bhatspara station. That stipulation in the Agreement was contrary to the specific written instructions of the Railway Board. The petitioner's-case is that the petitioners aienotboundbythestipulat'on is the Agreement in view of the Circular of the Railway Board dated 1.12.1986 which supersedes the earlier Circulars dated 28.1.1985 and 13.4.1981. The petitioners executed the Agreement as they were not aware of the Circular dated 1.12.1986. The petitioners have thereforee, prayed that it may be declared that clause 3(vi) of the Railway Bo...
Naveen Chand Johri and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT354; II(1991)DMC26
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Naveen Chand Johri petitioner No. I is the son of Smt. Vidya Devi petitioner No. 2. Naveen Chand Johri was married to Pratima Johri, deceased on 16 10.1977. Two children were born out of this wedlock. In 1987. petitioner No. 1 and Pratima Johri deceased along with their children were living at C-4-B/13/151, Janakpuri, New Delhi. On the night of 26th January, 1987 Pratima Johri burnt herself in order to commit suicide. She was removed to hospital by her husband and got her admitted there. The doctor on duty certified that Smt. Pratima John was in a fit condition to make a statement. Her statement was recorded at that very time by the 1.0. in the presence of the doctor who also signed the same as an attesting witness. On the basis of the statement so recorded, DDNo.SA dated 26.1.87 was recorded on the basis of which Fir No. 34/87 was registered against both the petitioners. After investigation, both the petitioners...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Punjab Dairy Development Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT863TriDel
1. The short point which-falls for consideration in this appeal is whether under Notification 38/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 (which permits use of skimmed milk powder into regeneration of liquid milk), sweetened flavoured milk could be produced and could still enjoy the exemption under the notification. While the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh confirmed a demand of Rs. 15,946.87 under Rule 196 read with Section 11A on the ground that the exemption under the notification could not be extended to sweetened flavoured milk which was actually a beverage, Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeal because, according to him, Notification 38/78 does not stipulate that the regenerated liquid milk should be the end product and should be cleared as such.Collector (Appeals) has also expressed the view that even if regenerated liquid milk were cleared as such from the factory of production in terms of Notification No. 38/78, there was nothing to prohibit its use for manufacture of any...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kanpur Pesticides and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC539Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accepting the plea of respondents herein that they were eligible for availing of the benefit of Notification 178/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 as a consequence of which they became entitled to refund of duty. The respondents had submitted a refund claim for Rs. 7616.67 which the Assistant Collector, Kanpur II Division had rejected as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to the Assistant Collector, the duty was paid on 20-9-1978, 27-10-1978, 8-11-1978, 30-11-1978, 27-12-1978 and 22-1-1979, whereas the refund claim was received in his office on 14-5-1979. Besides time-bar he also held the claim to be inadmissible because the provisions of Rule 173K had not been fully and properly observed. Collector (Appeals) accepted the respondents' plea that they had been making repeated applications to the authorities for permitting them to avail of the set-of...
ion Exchange (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC661Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The said appeal was received on 21-3-1.991 simultaneously a stay application duly supported with an affidavit was also filed. The learned Advocate, Shri Dave has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that in the matter before the Tribunal there is no demand of duty and no penalty has been imposed. The Collector in the impugned order has seized the goods lying in the premises of M/s. ION Exchange (I) Ltd. provisionally and had released the same on execution of B-II bond and security of Rs. 2 lakhs. He argued that the Collector had given an option to redeem the goods which had already been released on payment of Rs. 2 lakhs as fine in lieu of confiscation. He pleaded that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which were in the form of bank guarantee has also been appropriated and the balance amount of Rs. 22 lakhs the applicants has been desired by the Collector vide his le...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »