Delhi Court August 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.
Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT261TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 1242/88-BCH of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported "Yoke" declaring the consignment as spare/component part for Ammonia Refrigeration Compressors. The appellants subsequently filed a refund claim on the ground that these spares are eligible to concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 23/77-Cus., dated 8-2-1977. Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim. Collector (Appeals) also rejected the claim and upheld the impugned order on the ground that Notification No.23/77-Cus, dated 8-2-1977 exempts components only and not the spares.2A. Arguing for the appellants ld. Advocate submits that Notification No. 23/77-Cus., dated 8-2-1977 does not make a distinction between components and spares. Spare is also a part of the machine, in the same sense a component part is. In other words, spare is also used only as a component part of the equipment.3. Arguing for the revenue, ld. DR submits that there is ...
Sai Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT396TriDel
1. Appellants are absent and are unrepresented in spite of notice hearing. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, SDR and perused the papers.2. The appeal relates to import by appellants of 100 cartons of Pelikan brand of staple pins of South Korean origin through a Singapore supplier at the declared value of US $ 0.50 per dozen boxes CIF. Bill of Entry bears the date 11-6-1990. After show cause notice and personal hearing, the Collector of Customs loaded the value to US $ 0.66 per dozen boxes CIF. It is the contention of the appellants that this value could not have been adopted for two reasons, namely, that the appellants' import was under sale confirmation dated 7-5-1989 which disclosed the price to be US $ 0.50 per dozen boxes CIF, and the compared import was of another brand and of slightly lesser quantity.We do not think that in the circumstances these contentions could be accepted. The Collector has noticed that the sale confirmation which quoted the lower price did not refer to any bran...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Patel Detergents
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT546TriDel
1. These are 9 appeals which for proper understanding could be grouped as under :- Group-1 : Three appeals bearing Nos. E-2570/86-A, E/2571/86-A and E-2572/86-A, all filed by the Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeal No. M-1277-1279/AHD/687-689/86, dated 26-8-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, and corresponding three appeals bearing Nos. E/2522/86-A, E/2523/86-A and E/2524/86-A filed by the three assessee's, M/s. Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Patel Datergents & Harsiddh Detergents, against the same common Order-in-Appeal No. M-1277-1279/ AHD/687-689/86, dated 26-8-1986 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Group 2 : Two appeals bearing Nos. E/2502/86-A and E/2640/86-A, filed by the Revenue Appeal No. E/2502/86-A is against the Order-in-Appeal No. M-623-624/AHD/272-273/86, dated 7-8-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in which the respondents are (i) M/s. Nirma Sales and Mfg. Corpn. and (ii) Narayan ...
K.D. Agarwal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT452TriDel
1. Applicant in the ROA seeks restoration of the appeal which dismissed for default on 8-5-1996. The ROA came up for hearing on 6-8-1996. On that day we perused the ROA and the records made available. The ROA indicates that it is an application in Appeal No. C/1253/89-A (F. No.70/91-A). We wanted to verify what that appeal was since the appeal which was dismissed for default on 8-5-1996 was Appeal No. C/3852/88-A.The Registry has clarified that Appeal No. C/1253/89-A had been filed by the Department against the present applicant and the appeal was disposed of in the absence of the respondent therein but no merits. The restoration application refers to a letter dated 18-4-1996 of the applicant seeking adjournment. That application, on verification, seems to have been filed for seeking adjournment but not of the present appeal but of Appeal No. C/1253/89-A.2. The applicant has enclosed a photocopy of written argument which refers to the case F. No. C/70/91-A. If such written argument ha...
Ravinchandra D. Bros. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT151TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 6-1-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay confirming in order of assessment dated 2-4-1987 passed by Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The appellants have imported 2.035 m.t. of "Phosphor Bronze Foils in Coils", the same was declared for classification purpose under Chapter subheading 7410.12 of Customs Tariff Act & claimed benefit under Notification No. 341/76-Cus. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit without passing a detailed speaking order. The order does not give any reason also. Ld. Collector has confirmed this order by merely holding that there is no conflict in the classification of the subject goods under Customs Tariff Heading 7410.12 and the denial of concessional rate of duty under S. No. 112(2) of the Notification No. 341/76-Cus, In this appeal, it is contended by the appellants that they are entitled to the benefit of the Notification as 'Copper and Copper Alloy' as both fall within the terms of ...
Associated Cement Companies Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT149TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., the duty liability on the product 'Columns' fabricated by welding various steel items is involved. The appellants were engaged .in the manufacture of cement at their Cement works, Chanda. For producing cement they required fly ash. Maharashtra State Electricity Board had put up a power plant at Durgapur (Chandrapur). The appellants were permitted to put up a fly ash collecting plant within the premises of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board site at Durgapur. They fabricated the Columns at their cement works for subsequent fixing at the site of the Fly ash collecting plant. They paid Central Excise duty under Item No. 68 on such excisable goods under protest and subsequently they filed a refund claim. Their refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector and their appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay was rejected.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 9-8-1996. The appellants had prayed fo...
Chet Ram Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1029
Arun Kumar, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the Addl., Sessions Judge, Delhi under Sections 302/201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, for the murder of Deepu, son of Ram Khilawan and causing disappearance of evidence of offence. In fact four persons were accused for the murder of Deepu. One of them Duli Chand was a minor and was tried separately by the Children Court. Shanti, another accused was declared a lunatic and her trial was separated. The remaining two, i.e. Chet Ram, the appellant herein and Ramesh were tried together. By the impugned judgment Ramesh was acquitted while Chet Ram was convicted. Charge against the appellant and co-accused Ramesh was that along with Duli Chand and Shanti aforesaid on the night intervening 27th and 28th August 1986 in between the latrine of house Nos. K-61 and K-63, B. K. Dutta Colony, they intentionally caused the death of Deepu by strangulation and caused the evidence to disappear with intention to save themselves from the charge of murder of D...
Prem Bahadur and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT41
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The sentences of both the appellants in this appeal were suspended vide order dated 10th August 1993, passed by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the bonds furnished by the appellants are ordered to be cancelled and the appellants arc directed to surrender before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, forthwith to serve their sentences. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate will take all necessary steps in this behalf. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi forthwith.By a common judgment dated 24th November, 1992, appellant Prem Bahadur was convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi for an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code while Om Prakash and Inder Pal, appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code and all of them were sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 27.10.92. Crl.A. No. 233 of 1992 has been filed by Prem Bahadur while...
Bhan Prakash Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)17; 64(1996)DLT778
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) The charge framed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is sought to be revised/set aside in this criminal revision petition under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code under Sections 364, 387, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code in Fir No. 32/92, Police Station Narela, Delhi by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. (2) Four persons including the present petitioner have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that on 23.1.1992, Ch. Inder Singh had come to Delhi in his Maruti Car No. DAJ-4331 for some personal work but did not return till night. Search was of no consequence; that on 28.1.1992 the complainant was given telephone call by his servant from his residence at Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi and asked the complainant to take his letter which was left by someone whereupon the complainant went to his Majlis Park house on 29.1.1992 and there his s...
Yogesh Gurdasani Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)100; 64(1996)DLT33
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 45,53,610.00 . The plaintiff is a non-resident Indian and is residing at Dubai. First defendant is the Delhi Development Authority and the second defendant is the Union of India. The first defendant advertised and invited applications for the sale/allotment/grant of perpetual leasehold rights in respect of Nursing Home plots of various sizes. In the brochure issued by the first defendant in this regard it was mentioned that the plots were meant for Indians living abroad and the payment was required to be made by them in foreign exchange. The eligibility conditions for allotment of plots for Nursing Home were as follows : (I)Indian doctor residing abroad or who in the three years preceding the date of application was a resident abroad for a period of not less than two years; and (ii) Payment to be made in foreign exchange.(2) It was also provided in the aforesaid brochure that after the receipt by the defendant of the total premi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »