Delhi Court September 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 6 of about 93 results (0.010 seconds)Roxy Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC473Tri(Delhi)
1. This reference application is filed by the applicants under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 requiring the Tribunal to refer the following questions said to be the questions of law arising out of Order of the Tribunal No. A/28/91-NRB dated 4-1-1991 passed in appeal No. E/2864/87-NRB to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 1. Whether averments made in a plaint filed in a Civil Court by a litigant for damages against a Bank in a matter having no connection with the levy or payment of excise duty could constitute conclusive evidence in adjudication proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? 2. Whether such averments could at all be evidence even when the issues to the suit are still to be decided by the Civil Court, and the suit is pending? 3. Whether an averment contained in a plaint filed before a Civil Court which is pending could amount to an admission as defined in Section 17 & 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and fulfils the requirement...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT277TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur of confiscation of Indian currency of Rs. 2,55,000/- under Section 121 of the Customs Act as being sale proceeds of contraband gold and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-1-1987 at about 5.00 A.M.the appellant was apprehended by the officers of the Customs and Central Excise at Chetak Bus Stand, Udaipur and brought to the Division Office in an auto-rickshaw. A personal search resulted in the recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 2,55,000/- tied around his waist. In his statement the appellant disclosed that the money recovered from him was the sale proceeds of 10 gold biscuits which were given to him by one Shri Satram Das on 8-1-1987 to be delivered to one Shri Bhaghu Sindhi of Jodhpur and for delivering the gold biscuits to Shri Bhaghu Sindhi the appellant was to be paid Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Gases (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT273TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original No.S2-8/84 SIB dated 29-5-84 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. (a) 1 No. High Pressure Heat Exchanger/Liquifier unit with control Panel suitable for 70 Cu. m/hr Capacity. (b) 1 No. High Pressure expansion Engine with Electrical Motor and Cooling arrangement.They filed a bill of entry for clearance of the said goods under cover of invoice No. 83/PG-45 dated 18-5-1983 declaring the value totalling to 14,840/- C.I.F. Calcutta. They also claimed that the goods were covered by OGL as per Appendix 10, Sl. No. 1 of ITC Policy AM '83 as components for manufacture of Air Separation Plant at their Factory.The Collector who adjudicated the proceedings based upon the examination report of the Machinery Export Appraiser and report of M/s.A.G.A. Industrial Gases Ltd., U.K. observed that these goods were old, used and second-hand and Capital goods and import of such machines was not permissible. He determined the value at 21,75...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Mathur and anr. Vs. Sheel Kumar Saxena and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT114b
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) These two suits have been consolidated and directions have been given for recording the proceedings in Suit No. 1113/84. Arguments have been heard in detail and I proceed to the Judgment.(2) Admitted facts of the case, in brief, are that vide two lease-deeds executed on 30/11/1974, defendant No. 1, who is owner of propertyNo. 16, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, had let out the main building to Shri K.B. Mathur, plaintiff No. 1, at the rental of Rs. 1,500.00 per mensem and the portion comprising of two garages termed as 'Garage Block' located in the same very property to plaintiff No. 2. Smt. Satbir Mathur, wife of plaintiff No. 1, at the rental of Rs. 300.00per mensem. Defendant No. 1 was at the relevant time employed as Deputy Commissioner of Police in Dap in Delhi while defendant No. 2 is his real brother. Plaintiff No. 1 was working as District Manager of M/s. That Airways International Limited.(3) It is the case of the plaintiffs that till 21/05/1982, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Supreme Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)(39)ECC55
1. Being dissatisfied with the denial of benefit of Notification No.157/78-Cus., dated 9-8-1978, the appellants have filed their present appeal.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants M/s.Supreme Paper Mills Ltd., Calcutta, imported a consignment of 100 Metric Ton of goods declared as "Bleached Bamboo Pulp" from Bangladesh.The goods were assessed provisionally at the concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 157-Cus., dated 9-8-1978 pending test to verify description. The representative samples were drawn from the consignment and referred to the DYCC, Customs House, Calcutta, for test. On chemical test the samples were reported by DYCC, Customs House, as having the characteristic of Bamboo Pulp (Bleached). The DYCC also opined that Bamboo Pulp would merit consideration as other than Wood Pulp. On receipt of the Chemical Test Report and the opinion, as aforesaid, the Department formed a tentative view that the subject goods would not merit concessional asse...
Tag this Judgment!Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC139
1. This appeal is directed against the orders of the lower authorities ordering confiscation of a second-hand container in which a printing machine was imported by the appellants on the ground that the container is not specifically covered by the import licence submitted for clearance of the machine. A fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in lieu of confiscation was fixed by the Deputy Collector of Customs. This order has been upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay and hence the appeal before the Tribunal.2. The appellants state that the machine was imported by them duly packed in a second-hand container on non-returnable basis. According to them, this is a substitute for conventional means of packing and its value was charged under the heading "seaworthy packing" and the total value of the machine as well as the container is within the permissible limit of the import licence. They have also referred to para 131 of the Hand Book of Rules and Procedures for the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC351Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the orders of the Deputy Collector of Customs, (Group E), Customs House, Bombay ordering confiscation of 54 bales synthetic rags (weight 24524 kgs.) valued at Rs. 1,07,146.26 for mis-declaration of contents under Sections 111(d) and lll(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the 'Act' for short) and giving the option to the appellants to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only). Penalty of Rs. 50,000/ (Rupees Fifty thousand only) was also imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Act. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upheld the order on the ground that the appellants had not disputed that the goods were mis-declared.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that a consignment declared to be synthetic rags was imported from Germany in August, 1985 and its clearance was allowed under O.G.L. - Appendix 6 (Item No. 1 List No. 3) Part II of the import policy for 1984-85. The goods were cleared after the u...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Ajanta Tubes Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT624
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ No. 2564/84 dated October 27, 1987. The learned Single Judge disposed of two other writ petitions bearing No. 1537/85 and 2169/85 as common questions were involved In all these petitions with regard 'to the applicability of Clause 6 of Imports (Control) Order, 1955 (herein-after referred to as the Order). The challenge in all the petitions related to the debarment order dated 17.2.1984 read with debaring circular dated 2.3.1984 and the consequential letters issued by the appellants herein. (2) The brief facts relating to the matter in controversy are already referred to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and it will suffice to state that M/s. Jain Sudb Vanaspati Co. Ltd. imported certain amount of Beef Tallow. A show cause notice dated 14.11.1983 was issued to the said Company. The operative portion of the said show cause notice may be reproduced as follows :...
Tag this Judgment!Pearl Appliances Private Limited Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)ARBLR262(Delhi); 47(1992)DLT277
Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S Pearl Appliances Pvt. Ltd. are seeking injunctionagainst M/s Jay Engineering Works Limited who are intending to use the trademark consisting of the words 'PEARL' for its products namely fans and components thereof. Plaintiff has based his claim mainly on the ground that he isprior user of this , registered trade mark and has earned reputation and goodwill because of his superior pro ducts.(2) The plaintiff's case is that he is one of the leading manufacturersand traders of 'Electrical appliances'. Plaintiff is the proprietor of trade markconsisting of the word 'PEARL' for its electrical goods. This trade mark wasoriginally registered in the name of Raman Electricals (P) Ltd. but subsequentlyby virtue of the Deed of Assignment plaintiff took over this trade mark.Plaintiff has been using this trade mark extensively and continuously. Plaintiffhas been issuing advertisement for its products under this trade mark as a resultof which they have earned a goodwill and repu...
Tag this Judgment!Anupam Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1991
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT153TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order No. 1/1986 dated nil passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad by which he had demanded a duty of Rs. 8,43,621.36 and had also imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellants under Rules 173Q and 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and by which he had also ordered confiscation of rubberised cotton hose pipes seized from the appellants premises levying a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 10,000/-. The brief facts are that on information that the appellants manufactured rubberised hose pipes with the aid of power and are clearing them without payment of duty, the Preventive staff of the Collectorate Headquarters visited the appellants' premises on 23-8-1984. Five other units were found working under the same compound, namely, (1) M/s. Patel Industries; (2) M/s. Hose-Pipe Industries; (3) M/s. Parbhani Enterprises; (4) M/s.Laxmi Industries; and (5) M/s. Maharashtra Pipe Industries. On 24-8-1984, Sh. Nilesh Kumar R. Patel, partn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »