Delhi Court July 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 1 of about 72 results (0.011 seconds)Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2443TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, stands transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The question to be decided in this matter is whether the imported goods which are called by the Appellant 'film laminate' are classifiable under heading 48.01/21 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (ICT) as paper (as decided by the authorities below) or under heading 39.01/06 in the group of plastic goods or 38.01/19(1) as chemical products as elsewhere specified.3. The submission briefly are that before the ICT of 1975 came into force, the goods were being assessed under the "residuary" item 87 of the old ICT of 1934. The appellants further submit that 'film laminate' is a thin film of Electrolyte paste consisting of Zinc Chloride, Ammonium Chloride and Mercuric Chloride carried on a special carrier paper. Both the carrier paper and mixture...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Diesels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1383DTri(Delhi)
1. After hearing stay petition No. S.P. (Bom) No. 56 of 1983 on 18-4-83, the two Members of the Regional Bench expressed different opinions on the following points which arose in that matter :- (i) whether there was an effective order of the Collector as distinct from an order of a lower authority which could be a cause of action to justify the application for stay; and (ii) whether the Tribunal could entertain such an application and grant the stay.The case having been referred to me by the President under Section 129C(5), Customs Act, I have on the 4th and 5th July, 1983, heard representatives of both parties on the above questions. (Although one of the points for decision is whether at all an appeal lies to the Tribunal in this case, M/s. K.S. Diesels Ltd., are for convenience, and without prejudging the issue, referred to as "the appellants"). Shri J.R. Gagrat, Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri Krishan Kumar, Junior Departmental Representative, for the respondent.2. I...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Exports (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT1; 1983RLR610
Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and the connected petition, being C.W.P. No. 4038 of 1982, Jain Exports Private Limited, a company, inter alia, carrying on business of imports and exports, and R. K. Jain, its Managing Director, for short, the petitioners, challenge the validity of two orders of the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, confiscating industrial coconut oil, imported by them against 11 import licenses, of the redemption fine of 5 crores imposed on them and of the proceedings leading thereto, including the show cause notices issued to them at the initiation of the proceedings. (2) Courts are primarily concerned with the questions in controversy before them, whether of facts or of law, confined to the material properly brought on the record of proceedings uninfluenced by the antecedents of parties, the nature of their activities outside the transactions in dispute, their conduct in spheres and activities with which the court...
Tag this Judgment!Hargun Das Vs. Rewa Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR60
J.D. Jain, J. (1) RESPDT. sued petitioner for eviction u/s 14(1)(e) on the plea that with passage of time his children (sons-23 & 20, daughter 17 & 13) have become old enough so as to need separate rooms and his married daughter keeps on visiting and his present accommodation had become inadequate. Petitioner's brother and attorney who is living in the premises filed affidavit for leave to contest alleging that respdt. does not bona fide needs more space. Respdt. replied this by filing counter-affidavit. The Controller refused to give leave and petitioner moved High Court.] After giving above, judgment proceeds : (2) Section 25B(5) enjoins a duty on the Rent Controller to grant leave to contest the petition if facts disclosed in the affidavit of the tenant are such as would disentitle the landlord to obtain an order of eviction. thereforee, while examining the application for leave to contest the Rent Controller has ordinarily to confine to the facts disclosed in the affidavit and it i...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhu Ram Vs. Rameshwar Dass
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi151; 24(1983)DLT279; 1983(5)DRJ257
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Sidhu Ram is a tenant from 1959 in the disputed premises which comprised one room, a kitchen, common bath and latrine on the first floor since 1959. His eviction Was sought by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement and non-payment of rent. As regards the non-pavement of rent, he was given the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). The Additional Controller by his order dated 31-3-1975 directed eviction on the other ground. His appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 5-5-1978. Hence, this second appeal. (2) Respecting the purpose of letting, the learned Tribunal held that the premises were let for residential purposes only. The appellant with his wife arid children is living in the premises and runs his shop in the ground floor. In deciding the requirement of the landlord, one important consideration is the size of his family. The family of the landlord consists of his wife and three married daughters. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwal NaraIn Vs. L.F. Tellis
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT358
M.L. Jain, J. 1. Respondent L. F. Tellis was inducted as a tenant in the premises comprising four rooms, two verandas in the first floor and open space on the top floor, in a three storeyed house No. 44 Lekh Ram Road, in Darya Ganj, Delhi, some time in 1953. Late Lala Ram Narain terminated the tenancy by a notice of 8-9-1975 served on the respondent in Bombay. He filed an eviction application against the respondent on the ground of bona-fide requirement on 1-10-1975. That application has now been placed on record. He stated in his application that the premises are owned by HUF of which he was the karta. The HUF consisted of his son Kanwal Narain and his grandsons. In 1972, the respondent shifted to Bombay and promised to vacate the premises but failed to do so. The accommodation available with the applicant was insufficient for the family. He died on 19-10-1975. That application was dismissed on 23-2-1976.2. Shri Kanwal Narain an Advocate claiming as the Karta of the HUF again sent a n...
Tag this Judgment!National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT(2003)TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 4-2-80 against order-in-appeal No.S/49-781/79 Air dated 10-8-79 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, has been transferred by the Govt. of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. A consignment of rolled steel rings was imported and assessed under heading 73.33/40 vide B/E Cash No. 726 dated 14-7-78. Re-assessment was claimed under heading 84.62(1) with consequential refund but was rejected by the Assistant Collector since no catalogue was produced but drawing were supplied which could not be allocated to the goods imported. The Appellate Collector also could not connect the drawings with the invoice and found that the documents did not indicate that the goods were semi-finished components of bearings. Since classification declared at the time of importation was 75.33/40, and the goods were also out of Customs charge, the claim could not be verified at this stage and he rejected the app...
Tag this Judgment!instrumentation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2376TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 11-11-1980 against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-510/80 Air dated 30-6-1980, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, has been transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of the provisions of Sec. 131 B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. A consignment of Ceramic Resistance Element Type W60/1, RO 100 Ohms DIN STD was imported and assessed to duty under Heading 85.18/27 (1) vide B/E No. 900D dated 15-12-1978. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim for re-assessment under Heading 90.29 (1)/90.23 (1) as parts of Thermometer as untenable since resistors (resistances) fixed or variable are specified under heading 85.19 as per BTN Explanatory Notes Section XVI page 1448. The Appellate Collector stated that the catalogue produced by the Appellants shows that the elements have a nominal resistance in terms of Ohms at a certain temperature and this varies with change in temperature, they are in the form of a r...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Iqbal Vs. Kani Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ222
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) Since only a short point is involved, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to dispose of the Revision Petition. The main grievance of the petitioner in this Revision Petition is that the learned trial court is not taking up the application filed by him under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code. From the Order Sheet, it appears that the application along with the suit was put up before the learned trial judge on April 7, 1933. It was probably considered that ex-parte order should not be passed and a notice was issued to the defendant for April 18, 1983. The parties appeared on April 18,1983 and the case was again adjourned for filing of the written statement and reply to May 10, 1983. On May 10, 1983, the written statement and the reply had been filed, but the case was adjourned to July 13, 1983 for arguments on the application, lam told that even on July 13, 1983, no orders on the application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 have been passed and ...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Dayal Metal Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Girnari Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT355
M.L. Jain, J. (1) On 6-7-1962 an agreement of lease was reached between the respondent Smt. Girnari Devi and Gopal Dass, Dev Kumar and Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal (herein the Aggarwals) in respect of the disputed premises No. 20/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the material conditions of this agreement was that the period of lease shall be ten years with effect from 15-7-1962. Another important term was that the Aggarwal were authorised to assign the demised premises for the use of any of the companies in which they or any of them is a director or for the use of any of the firms in which they or any of them is a partner. Out of them, Gopaldas and Dev Kumar arc since December 1959 two of the directors of M/s. Devi Dayal Metal Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (herein the appellants). The correspondence that ensued between the parties with regard to the payment of rent from 21-5-1963 onwards shows that rent was payable and was paid by the appellants. Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal has signed all these letters as ...
Tag this Judgment!