Delhi Court May 1996 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. Rita Mechanical Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT442TriDel
1. Collector of Customs, Chandigarh has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 756/CE/CHD/92, dated 10-9-1992 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh whereby the Commissioner had rejected the department's appeal before her and upheld the Assistant Collector's order sanctioning refund to the respondent in the said appeal proceedings who are also respondents in the present appeal before us.The Collector (Appeals) had rejected the appeal accepting all the pleas raised by the respondent which cover the point that the review carried out by a Collector of Customs of the order of the Assistant Collector was under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act whereas the proceedings in question relate to Customs Act and the review as such should have been carried out under Section 129D(2) thereunder. Another pleas which found favour with her was that at the time of payment of refund there was no law regarding unjust enrichment. The third ground endorsed by her was tha...
Modern Trading Co. (Delhi) Pvt. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT625TriDel
1. The appellants placed an order for supply of 2000 sets components/sub assemblies for car cassette player, half to be supplied by sea and the remaining half by air. Regarding the goods supplied by sea, the impugned order passed by Assistant Collector shows that the invoice price was treated as C.I. price. We take it therefore that freight element is added to the invoice price to arrive at the assessable value. The present appeal relates to the consignment received by air. The air consignment invoice is not before us. It is not possible to verify whether the air invoice showed C.I.F. price or C.I. price. The assessable value has been arrived at after adding the air freight. Appellant paid the duty demanded and cleared the goods and thereafter submitted refund claim alleging that notional sea freight alone should have been included in the assessable value. The A.C.rejected the claim and so did the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.2. The present import was made prior to 1...
Otis Elevator Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT146TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) upholding the rejection of the appellants' refund claim by the Dy. Collector of Customs, Refund Department. The claim for reassessment of toothed tape for lifts manufactured by the importers/appellants under Heading 84.22 against Heading 73.33/40(1) of CTA, 1975 was rejected on the ground that the imported goods are nothing but endless belt of metal which is excluded from Chapter 84 by virtue of Note 1(h) to Section XVI of CTA, 1975. The appellants' claim that the toothed tape is an integral part of lifts and has already acquired the character of components of lifts and hence classifiable under Chapter 84.2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants, inspite of notice for today's hearing having been issued to them on 26-4-1996, hence, we heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. The imported goods are toothed tapes of steel in running length. The appellants have not been able to substantiate their ...
G. Dayaram and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC56Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of the order of the Collector dated 10-6-1987. The issue involved is the classification of "sandwich bonded fabrics" manufactured by M/s. G. Dayaram & Co., Bombay. The learned Collector in upholding the order of the lower authority held that such fabrics were correctly classifiable under the then Tariff Item number 19(III) or 22(3) depending upon the classification of the base fabric.The case of the assessee was that such fabrics at the material time were not covered under the definition of these tariff but would fall under T.I. No. 68. Advocate F. Sorabjee claimed that Tariff Item No.19(III) covered cotton fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials. He claimed that sandwich bonding does not amount to impregnation coating or lamination. Citing from an article from the International Symposium of Bonded Laminated Fabrics held at Washington in 1969, he described the process of ...
Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT188TriDel
1. Appellant imported five consignments of components and sub-assemblies of C.C.T.-video Camera, one consignment under R.E.P.Licence and the other consignments under OGL. The first four consignments were packed in three cases. The fifth consignment was packed in a separate case. Examination showed that three cases contained electronic sub-assemblies and the fourth case contained plastic bodies of video camera and that all the imported goods, when put together formed complete sets of video cameras, Model JVC GX N.5.E, in CKD condition. Import of video cameras was restricted as per Entry 122 of Appendix 2 Part B of 1985-88 Import Policy and required a specific licence which the appellant did not possesses. Invoice value was also found to be low. Show cause notice was issued in regard to the unauthorised import and misdeclaration of value. It was contended that appellant was a small scale manufacturer of video cameras and actual user of the imported goods, that the import was not of vide...
Sree Srinivasa Foundry Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT634TriDel
1. In these batch of appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is the correct classification of the item "Rotors" and "Stators" used in the manufacture of "Monobloc P.D. Pumps". The Collector (Appeals) held that the item is classifiable under Tariff Item 30D and not under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Tariff as prayed for by the appellants.2. We have heard the learned Advocate, Shri V. Sridharan for the appellants and the learned DR, Shri Mohd. Ali for the Revenue.3. The learned Advocate pointed out that the issue is no longer res Integra and the same is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of EL. P.EM. Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 681.4. The learned DR admitted to distinguish this judgment and claim that the items become part and parcel of an electric motors, hence they are required to be...
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Government of the People's ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi31; 1996(38)DRJ690
ORDER1. This is an application under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking vacation of order dated April 9, 1996, passed in I.A. No. 3205/96 in Suit No. 805/96, and for directing the release of the vessel 'M.V. Pranburi'.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it will be necessary to first notice the facts as given in the plaint.3. The plaintiff/non-applicant is the Stale Trading Corporation of India, while the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh is the first defendant. The plaintiff entered into a contract for sale of Non-Basmati Par Boiled Rice with the first defendant on July 19, 1995 (for short the principal contract'). By virtue of this agreement the plaintiff agreed to sell to the first defendant 50,000 MT (+ 5%) of non-Basmati for Boiled Rice of Indian origin. The plaintiff suppliedand the first defendant received a total quantity of about 40,000 MT of the rice. For the remaining quantity of the c...
Biren Mandal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3455
Arun Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 28th July, 1992 convicting the appellant of offence punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. and awarding him the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case reveals the following facts. There is a site called the New Water Pump House in Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi where some civil work was going on. To guard the site security guards were posted who performed their duty as per the duty roster. On 6th September, 1987 Jai Chand, P.W. 4, who was one of the security guards whose duty was to commence at 6.00 a.m. in the morning, reached the site at about 9.30 a.m. because his train was late on that date. He found some blood spots behind the Water Pump House. He proceeded ahead and found a dead body lying in the gutter. He informed his senior K. P. Tyagi, P.W. 2, who had also reached the site at about same time for a routine check. K. P. Tyagi, after seeing the dead body...
A.K. Group and Others Vs. N.K. Group R.K. Group and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT688
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties for a considerable length of time because the disputes were between brothers and the widow of one of the brothers, living in different parts of the country. The four brothers originally thought - and one of them dies later that by referring, the disputes to arbitration, the division of properties could be expedited and they can have a peaceful life. But what happened subsequently is really very much disturbing. I thought that arbitration, at any day is better remedy than directly approaching the Civil Court but what was noticed by the court of Appeal in England sometime ago appears to be true 'Many years ago, a top hated old gentleman used to parade outside these Law Courts carrying a placard which bore the stirring injunction 'Arbitrate - don't litigate' I wonder whether the burning enthusiasm of that old gentleman would not have been dampened somewhat, had he survived long enough to learn something about the present cas...
K.M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.[Overruled] Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR202(Delhi)
DR. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the notices under ss. 148 and 142 of the IT Act issued to the petitioner relevant to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1971-72, 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2. Lands measuring about 4,200 bighas was acquired by the then Chief Commr. of Delhi by notification dt. 6th March, 1966 and 6th Sept., 1966, issued under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. By judgment dt. 20th May, 1980, the then Addl. District Judge held the petitioner to be entitled 1/32nd share of the compensation awarded under the awards. As a consequence thereof the petitioner received a compensation of Rs. 1,33,810. On a reference application filed by the petitioner under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, by his judgment dt. 31st July, 1991, passed his award. Consequently, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,20,624 which amount represented towards principal amount at Rs. 41,96,496 and interest at Rs. 76,84,829 up to 18th May, 1992. According ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »