Delhi Court August 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.
Searle India Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC(1999)DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application under Section 36 to the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35P) against the order No. 550/1979 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants manufacture diverse chemical and pharmaceutica preparations by using Benzene and Toluene. The appellants are covered by notification No. 276/67 wherein Benzene and Toluene were exempt from a large part of excise duty if they were, inter alia, cleared outside the refinery under a prescribed procedure and used in the manufacture of chemicals or chemical formulations. They had received a letter from the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise to the effect that the appellants were recovering Benzene or Toluene and therefore, they should pay excise duty on the same under tariff item No, 6. After receiving a reply to that, the said Asstt. Collector again sent a letter dated 14.2.1977 alleging that the appellants submitted a wrong declaration by inform...
Kulwant Rai JaIn Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi378; 25(1984)DLT11; 1984(6)DRJ226; 1984RLR161
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Kulwant Rai appellant is the landlord. Ratanlal was the tenant. His son is Banwarilal. The premises' in dispute are two. shops. The tenancy commenced in July, 1955. (2) The landlord filed an eviction application on the ground that (1)Ratanlal sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession in favor of his son Banwarilal in respect of one shop', (2)Bona fide requirement of the premises for rebuilding. (3) The Additional Controller dismissed the application on 19-12-1973. Ratanlal then died. The landlord filed an appeal against his legal representatives including Banwarilal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 31-8-1977. It upheld the findings that the grounds of eviction were not made out. It was also urged before it that since the tenancy rights in premises let out for non-residential purposes did not pass on to the successors of the statutory tenant after his death, eviction order be passed against the legal representatives. The appellant relied upon J...
Pokardas Varan Dani Vs. Ramesh Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT340
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The premises in dispute were let out in June, 1970. On 4.3-1980 the landlord filed an eviction application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant applied for leave to contest. The learned Addl. Controller by his order of 27-10-1980 allowed leave but simultaneously dismissed the petition because on the admitted facts of the case the requirement was not found to be bona fide. Hence, this revision. (2) It is urged at the out set that the learned Addl. Controller had adopted a very wrong procedure. Having allowed leave to defend, he could not have dismissed the application. He should have asked the tenant to file a reply and then allowed the parties to go to trial. At any rate, he could have rejected and not dismissed the application. I have considered this argument. I do not see any material difference would occur if in place of dismissing the application, it was rejected. I also see no objection to the application being disposed of at the...
Ex. Engineer (Civil), C.W. and Pr Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: (1992)(38)LC457Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as Revision Application to the Government of India is whether appellants' should be granted the benefit of Notification No. 211/1976 and granted refund of duty paid by them.2. The appellants by Bill of Entry No. Cash-647 dt. 7.2.1980 imported Hydrology Equipment by Air from London. At the time of import...claimed duty free import, claiming benefit of Notification No. 211/76-Cus. It appears that at that time the appellants were not possessed of necessary papers like NMI & DE Certificates and they paid duty under protest. 2A. Later, they had applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund of duty, who by his order dated 12.8.1980 rejected the appellants' claim as unsubstantiated as the appellants did not produce the documents called for. In appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order dated 20.11.1980 rejected the appellants claim on the ground that DE Certificate is not produced and the NMI Cer...
General Manager, Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2392TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally filed as Revision Application to Government of India, is the correctness or otherwise of appellants' claim for refund on the ground that the imported goods were assessable at preferential rate of duty being of United Kingdom origin.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras by his order dated 24-4-1980 rejected the claim on the ground that the claimant had not produced the country of origin Certificate within 6 months from the date of payment of provisional duty. From the order dated 9-7-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, it appears that he did not accept the photostat copies of invoices containing country of origin certificate produced by the appellants for assessing the imported goods at preferential rate of duty. He held that country of origin certificate not having been produced within the specified time-limit preferential rate of duty could not be applicable to the goods imported. He accordingly rejected a...
Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2396TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as Revision application to the Government of India, is whether the appellants M/s. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., Madras are entitled to the benefit of job-work under Notification No. 119/75, dt. 30-4-1975 in respect of 'Nails' falling under T.I. 68 of C.E.T. made out of wires received from their customers and returned to them.2. The appellants have been manufacturing Iron Products for long time by themselves or on job-work basis for others. For the material time, which is not clear but not under dispute, the appellants received Iron wires from M/s. India Co. Ltd. for converting into wire nails on job-work basis- both wires and nails falling under T.I. 58, the appellants converted the wire into wire nails and returned wire nails to India Company Pvt. Ltd. charging only for conversion. It appears that the appellants at the time had availed of benefit of Notification No. 119/75, dated 30-4-75. The Excise authorities felt tha...
Fateh Bahadur Vs. Anju and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT345
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This is a revision against the order of the learned Guardian Judge dated 2-6-1983. (2) The parties were married on 6-6-1974. The husband had four brothers. Their father owned a house No. H-83, Ndsc Part I, New Delhi. He also owned a building in Greater Kailash, which stands leased out to Hong Kong Restaurant. The house was sold, but the brothers were living in the same house as tenants. The husband Fateh Bahadur was living in the back portion of the ground floor which comprised only one room and some tin-sheds. One brother was living in the front portion and another was living in the second floor. One brother is in U.S.A. The couple had two children out of the wedlock, one daughter and one son. Both are of the ages of more than five years. The husband also owned some land which he sold and went to U.S.A. on 9-10-1981. It is alleged that he developed intimacy with some girl there in U.S.A. Before going to U.S.A., the husband gave a power of attorney on 24-9-1981 in favo...
Ram Saran Vs. Misri Lal Mauriya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT281; 1984(6)DRJ227; 1984RLR149
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of S.A.O. 116/82 and cross-objections Cm 2147/82. (2) The appellant Ram Saran was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 33.00 in the disputed shop. He was inducted by Lallu Rain father of Misri Lal respondent. The father gifted the property in favor of the respondent and the appellant began to pay rent to him in June, 1972, but stopped doing so with effect from 1-10-1975. Misri Lal served a notice on Ram Saran on 26-3-1979 of demand for arrears oi rent and termination of tenancy with effect from 30-4-1979, but with no result. He then filed the present eviction application under cl.(a)of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (the Act). (3) The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Misri Lal. He said that he was inducted as tenant by Misri Lal's brother Ganga Ram and has been paying rent to Ganga Ram and the applicant never notified to him that he was the owner. Upon receipt of the notice he tendered ...
Banmali Raut Vs. Pushpa Sakasena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT383
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.1982 whereby the eviction petition of the respondent owner was allowed and the eviction order was passed. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. In paragraph 18 (a) of the petition, it was alleged : 'That the tendency premises are bona fide required by the petitioner for herself and for the members of her family, dependent upon her for accommodation and otherwise also. The petitioner has no other suitable residential accommodation for herself and the members of her family. The petitioner is the owner/landlord of the disputed tenancy premises. The tenancy premises had been let out to the respondent for residential purpose'. (2) That the petitioner's family comprised of herself, her husband, one married daughter, one unmarried daughter, one unmarried son and a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indodan Milk Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1959DTri(Delhi)
1. The point at dispute in this case is whether 'Milkafe'-a product manufactured by the respondent company and consisting of 3 to 4 per cent coffee, 40 per cent sugar, 28 per cent milk solids and fat and the rest moisture-is a prepared food falling under item 1-B of the Central Excise Tariff and, if so, whether it is covered by the expression "ready-to-serve beverages" occurring in S.No. 9 of exemption notification No. 17/70-C.E., dated 1-3-1970.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent company cation lists on 30-6-79 and 21-6-80 declaring "Milkafe' under ilerri 1-B and claiming exemption under the aforesaid notification. The classification suggested by them was approved provisionally under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Later, after hearing the respondent company, the Asstt. Collector held that though the product fell under item 1-B, it was a ready-to-serve beverage and hence not exempt under the notification. In appeal, the Appellate Collector held that it was not a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »