Skip to content

Delhi Court June 1994 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.

Jun 02 1994

Kwality Printers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on: Jun-02-1994

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT901TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against impugned order dated 21-4-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. The appellants are engaged in the printing cartons. The Collector who adjudicated the proceedings confirmed the demand holding that they have manufactured and cleared the excisable goods viz. Printed Cartons during 1982-83,1983-84 and 1984-85 from their factory on their own account as well as on behalf of others and denied the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 83/83 on the ground that aggregate value of the clearances exceeded the exemption limit.3. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Counsel for the appellants attacked the impugned order mainly on three grounds : (i) He said that the Collector erred in clubbing the clearances of other 4 units with that of appellants on the ground that the Printed Cartons manufactured by other units were glued/pasted in the premises of the appellants. But it is a fact that other units have sent the printed...


Jun 02 1994

Continental Eastern Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on: Jun-02-1994

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT277TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi upholding the order of the Assistant Collector classifying the items imported viz. Techo Generator and Electric Fagon Box under Heading 98.06 CTA, 1975 with the benefit of Notification 68/87 and confiscating the same for unauthorised importation without requisite import licence with option to redeem on payment of a fine.2. The brief farts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment from Italy and cleared the goods as (1) lifting screws, (2) gear and gear worms (3) Techo Generator and (4) Electric Fagon box. The case was adjudicated for non-production of import licence for items 3 and 4 and the importer went up in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) against the adjudication order and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration to the Assistant Collector (Imports). A fresh show cause notice was issued to the importer on 2-8-1988 on the following grounds: "On examination techometers were ...


Jun 01 1994

National Insulated Cables Co. Vs. Coll. of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on: Jun-01-1994

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT889TriDel

1.1 In three separate classification lists of different dates, the appellants herein declared among other goods the description of one type of goods as follows (as reproduced in the impugned order) and claimed classification of the said goods under Tariff Item 33B(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff :- "1/1.8 mm (2.55 mm2) Nicco Round 2 core armoured cable conductor composed of Alum. Wires"," 1 /1.80 mm (2.55 mm2) Nicco single score power cable aluminium cond. circular / Sectors"etc.1.2 The lower authorities, however, have classified the goods under Item 33B(i) as applicable to "electrical wires and cables of aluminium...the conductor of any core of which... has area not exceeding 2.5 square millimeters...." 1.3 Finding of fact by the lower appellate authority namely Shri G.Sarangi, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is as follows :- "In the instant case admittedly, the sectional area of the subject aluminium wire is more than 2.5 square milimetres i.e. 2.55 mm2 as declared ...


Jun 01 1994

Hilton Rubbers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on: Jun-01-1994

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT112TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Hilton Rubbers Ltd. against the order of the Addl. Collector. The Addl. Collector in his order had held: "I have examined the case records carefully and on examination, I found that Polyster Film used as a separator is not an input for the purpose of Rule 57A which defines 'inputs' as inputs which are manufactured and used within the factory of production, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but does not include machines, machineries, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing, of any goods or for bringing about any change in final products. In view of the above definition of inputs, Polyster films cannot be treated as inputs but these are in the nature of appliances which are used several times for producing or processing of goods." "The Tribunal's decision in the case of Weldekar Laminates Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 538 (TBL) that this decision will apply only to this very uni...


Jun 01 1994

Avtar Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jun-01-1994

Reported in: 55(1994)DLT539

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is a petition for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 IPC.The facts of the case are that on the complaint of Mrs. Paramjit Kaur, who is a practicing Advocate at Tis Hazari in Delhi, a case under Sections 406 and 498A of Indian Penal Code was registered which is the subject matter of Fir No. 98/94, Police Station Anand Parbat, West Distt, New Delhi.(2) During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that or additional allegations fresh charges have been leveled against the petitioner under Sections 420,494 and 495 of IPC.(3) The petitioner is also a practicing Advocate and he was earlier practicing in Punjab and had shifted his practice to Delhi in the year 1991 and had been staying with one Mrs. Harbans Kaur as a paying guest since she was his neighbour in Punjab.(4) On 4/07/1993, petitioner married Paramjit Kaur, but the marriage could not prove successful since both of...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial