Delhi Court June 1984 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.
C.D. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT83TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is whether the flat steel product manufactured by the appellants called 'Pattis' is classifiable as 'strips' under Tariff Item 26AA(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff as held by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division-II, Kalyan by his order dated 26-12-1982, which was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by his order dated 22-4-1983 or under T.I. 26AA (ia) ibid, as claimed by the appellants.2. The appellants filed classification list effective from 13-1-1982 in respect of their Stainless Steel product claiming classification under sub-item (ia) of Item 26AA of C.E.T. and exemption in terms of Notification No. 206/63 dated 30-1-1963, as amended and Notification No. 152/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977, as amended. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, did not accept their classification under sub-item (ia) claimed by the appellants and held that their product is properly classifiable as 'strips'...
Bharat Rubber Regenerating Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT85TriDel
1. The dispute involved in this case is whether reclaimed rubber manufactured by the appellants in the form of plates and sheets falls under Item 16A (2) of the Central Excise Tariff and is exempt under Notification No. 71/68-C.E., dated 1-4-1968 or it falls under Item 68 of the Tariff. These two tariff items read as under :- (2) Plates, sheets and strips un-hardened, whether vulcanised or not, and whether combined with any textile material or otherwise. (4) Transmission, conveyor or elevator belts or belting, or vulcanised rubber." 2. The appellants stated during the hearing before us that according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 19 page 680 there were three types of rubber :- They further quoted the following extract from the book 'Rubber Technology',Second Edition, by Maurice Morton : "The original definition for reclaimed rubber as written by J.M. Ball in the first edition of this book will be quoted : "It is the product resulting from the treatment of vulcanised scrap rubbe...
Sunil Wadhwani Vs. J.P. Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes88; 26(1984)DLT104; 1984RLR646
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Sunil Wadhwani, Manager (Purchase and Imports), Western Electronics Limited, respondent no. 5, is directed against the complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, against the petitioner, the said respondent and 4 others, for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/465/467/468/471 I.P.C., and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and Sections 420/465/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the order of the trial court summoning the petitioner ?a the complaint, as an accused person, to stand his trial for the aforesaid offences. (2) On the basis of information that Ashok Kumar Gupta, respondent no. 2, in the petition, and certain others, were parties to a conspiracy, to commit offences of cheating and forgery, and of use of forged documents as genuine, with a view to fraudulently obtain,...
Delux Pictures (Delhi) Vs. Pritam Pal Singh (Retd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT100
M.L. Jain, J.(1) BRIG. Pritam Pal Singh made an application to the Controller on 7th July, 1978 for permission to create a fixed term tenancy under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of ground floor of house No. D/386 defense Colony New Delhi in favor of M/s Delux Pictures, Delhi through their sole proprietor Shri Dhru. In this application Pritampal Singh stated that the ground floor has been constructed on an area of 325 Sq. yards for his own use and for the residence of his children. He did not require the premises for period of four years i.e. from 12th July, 1978 to 12th July, 1982 and, thereforee, agreed to let out the premises to the said Delux Pictures. After the expiry of the said period the landlord shall require the premises for his bona fide requirement and for the bona fide requirement of his children. He made a statement before the Controller that the premises were surplus with him for a period of four years. He h...
Reliable Finance Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Clearing House and Agencies ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT431
M.L. Jain, J.(1) Tirath Ram Ahuja is the owner of the property in dispute namely, municipal No. B-6, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. It was leased out to M/s Associated Tube Wells Ltd. who were authorised to and did sublet some of the portion to M/s Clearing House & Agencies (P) Ltd. In 1967 Associated Tubewells surrendered the tenancy in favor of Tirath Ram Ahuja. Thereafter on 1-6-1967 relationship of landlord and tenant between Reliable Finance and Clearing House. (2) He found that the standard rent was Rs. 250.00 per month but dismissed the application for fixation of standard rent on the ground that it was barred by limitation under section 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (3) The learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeals on 19-10-1973. Hence these two second appeals. Sao No. 10/74 and Sao 11/74. The respondents have filed cross objections No. 526/74. All will be disposed of by this order. (4) Sao Ii of 1974. The learned Tribunal was of the view that Reliable Finance be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›