Delhi Court March 1983 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.
India Waterproofing and Dyeing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1922DTri(Delhi)
1. The Revision Petition filed before Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance under section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as it then stood, has been,transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of provision of section 35P of the Act, and has been taken to be disposed of as such.2. The appellant feels aggrieved by an order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta on 6-7-1981 whereby he confirmed the order dated 25-7-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector of the Division.3. The impugned order came to be passed on a representation having been made by the appellant by means of a letter dated 28-9-1977 to the effect that the rain-coats and capes manufactured by them in their factory at 3, Mall Road, Dum Dum, Calcutta fell within the category of "Ready to wear apparel" as contemplated by Tariff Item No. 22-D of the Central Excise Tariff and were thus exempt from duty by virtue of Notification No. 95/71...
Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC567DTri(Delhi)
1. The subject three appeals arise out of the cqmmon Order-in-Appeal which was passed in respect of three Orders-in-Original Since a common issue is involved in all the three appeals, they were heard together.2 The facts in brief are that the appellants have a Research & Development Department in their factory. They erected a pilot plant in this department for R & D work. They manufactured about 70% of the components of this pilot plant in their own factory and bought the remaining 307 or so of the components from outside The point to be decided in these three apeals is whether the appellants are liable to pay any Central excise duty on the pilot plant or on the components of the said plant manufactured by themselves In order to facilitate a proper understanding of the issue involved, we reproduce below the relevant exemption notification :- reproduce "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Excise Rules 1944, and in supersession of the notificatio...
Milk Made Corporation Vs. Collector Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC709DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application to the Government of India, which under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excise's and Salt Act, 1944 is to be proceeded with as if it were an appeal filed before this Tribunal.2. At the relevant time, there was Chapter VIII-B (Rule 173-R to Rule 173RM) in Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called Rules), which contained what was called Simplified Procedure. The object of the procedure was to give concession in duty and some other facilities to small scale manufacturers. It appears that limit of annual value for purposes of duty was fixed for different classes of manufacturers. For the class of manufacturer to which the applicant belonged it was fixed at Rs. 5 lakhs per year. This Chapter was omitted vide Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue)'s Notification No. 206/79-CE, dated 16.6.79 (GSR 822). 2a. After the appellants fulfilled the requirements of Rule 173-RA they were granted permission for discharge of duty liability in the manner provided for...
Ceakay Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC687DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Ceakay Rubber Industries stated to be a partnership concern doing business of manufacture of rubber products within the jurisdiction of Changanacherry Range, Kottayam Division in Cochin Collectorate (Kerala), had filed this revision petition before the Central Government under provisions of Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The same has been received by the Tribunal as an appeal by virtue of Section 35P of the said Act, and is being disposed of as such.2. The appeal is directed against order passed by the Appellate Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Madras on 11-2-1980 whereby he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Kottayam Range on 3-7-1978 confirming demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,42,230.02 against the appellant being excise duty for the period 1-2-1970 to 13-10-1972 in relation to the product described as 'Cushion Compound'.This was pursuant to a notice to show cause having been issued on 28-...
Belrex India Ltd. Vs. Singhal Electric Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi430; 1983(5)DRJ94; 1983RLR435
Sultan Singly, J.1. M/s. Belrex India Ltd. Calcutta a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,83,641.48 besides interest and costs against Singhal Electric Company and its partners. The judgment debtors were carrying on business in a shop at 1868, Mahalaxmi Market, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The goods lying in the shop were attached by actual seizure. A local commissioner put his own lock and seal at the shop. The attached goods have since been removed from the shop and it is lying vacant. The decree holder states that the said shop is only asset of the judgment debtors known to the decree-holder, that they are not in a position to run business in the shop as they have no funds and it will be futile to restore possession of the shop to them. The decree-holder states that it is willing to take possession of the shop in order to run a show room-cum-retail sale depot, and to adjust Rs. 2000/- permonth for use and occupation of the shop from the amount of the decree. Thus it is prayed th...
Vali Ram Vs. Satwanti Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi90; 25(1984)DLT259; 1983(5)DRJ259
Sultan Singh, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th September, 1981 under Order 21 Rule 58(4) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') partly accepting the claim/objection of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts are that Smt. Satwant Kaur, respondent No 1 obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 49,300/- with costs and interest against Ratan Kumar Shivnani, respondent No. 2. On 22nd May, 1980 she made an execution application for attachment of properties. The decree-holder also filed an affidavit dated 29th May, 1980 deposing that the moveable property detailed in the list belonged to the judgment-debtor. Warrant for attachment of moveable property was issued. On 7th June, 1980 various moveable properties were attached. 3. Shri Vali Ram, appellant-objector, father of the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 47 and 151 of the Code for delivery of the attached property to him on ...
Sanjiv Parkash and ors. Vs. N.D.M.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi478; ILR1984Delhi511
Sachar, J.1. These appeals relate to the matter or allotment to the prestigious underground shopping complex known as Palika Bazar which was built in Connaught Place by the respondent Committee in the year 1976. This, shopping Centre was designed to accommodate 308 shops of various sizes located at different levels. The whole complex is a centrally air-conditioned one. The Committee by its resolution of 29-11-1977 had approved a policy matter to allot 98 shops to the shopkeepers of Panchkuin Road because that space was required for widening of the said Road. The Government had also taken a policy decision that the following categories of shopkeepers who had been carrying another business elsewhere will be accommodated first. These categories were--Panchkuin Road--98, Janpath Stalls-71, Tibetan Stalls-24 and Connaught Circus (Yusuf zai Market)-117- The Government also decided as per communication of 27-4-1978 that out of these above shopkeepers who wished to leave their present shops an...
National Newsprint and Paper Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1258DTri(Delhi)
1. The matter in dispute in this case relates to liability of the imported item which is described as "pulp stones" for purposes of countervailing duty.2. According to records, the import took place on 7/8-2-1980 and the goods were classified under heading 68.01/16(2) of the Customs Tariff for basic Customs Duty whereas for the purposes of countervailing duty it was held to be falling under Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff.The party was made to pay an amount of Rs. 94,625.77 on account of countervailing duty in addition to customs and other duties.Subsequently an application for refund was made on the contention that the imported goods were not liable to any countervailing duty, and that Tariff heading 51 had been wrongly applied.3. This prayer for refund made by M/s. Lee & Muirhead (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay on behalf of importers, namely, M/s. National Newsprint & Paper Mills Ltd., was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order dated 12-6-1980 holding...
R.P. Gupta Vs. Sureshta Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT404
N.N. Goswamy, J. 1. This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment dated April 24, 1982 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion was dismissed.2. The appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.It was pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11th December, 1970 at New Delhi and in accordance with Hindu customs arid rites. After the marriage, the parties resided and cohabited as husband and wife at 5, Raja Ram Building, Ram Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent conceived a child but unfortunately there was a miscarriage. The respondent used to make flying visits to the appellant and stay with him at Delhi as the respondent was working as Nurse in P.G.I. Hospital at Chandigarh. The respondent at the time of marriage concealed the fact from th...
Suresh Gupta Vs. Ramesh Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT432; 1983RLR399
N.N. Goswamy, J. 1. This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 1-5-1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, whereby the preliminary issue framed in the suit was decided against him.2. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for possession of the premises in dispute on the allegations that he was the owner of the premises and Shri Ram Gupta was the tenant in the said premises. The tenancy of Shri Ram Gupta was terminated by means of a notice dated 2-6-1978 and w.e.f. 1-7-1978, he became a trespasser. The premises were let for commercial purposes and Shri Ram Gupta having died, his legal heirs were not entitled to the benefit of Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.3. The suit was contested by the petitioner who raised a preliminary objection in the written statement regarding the maintainability of the suit. According to the allegations in the written statement, the tenancy rights of the deceased Shri Ram Gupta devolved upon all ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »