Delhi Court September 1986 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.
indo-japan Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC424Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a dispute relating to an assessment of steel ingots for which the manufacturers M/s. Indo-Japan Steels Ltd. claimed exemptions under a number of notifications. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, in his impugned order No. 9(26)-Coll 439/82 dated 10-3-1982/30-4-1982 (we do not understand why there are two dates) list a number of them in paragraph 2: they are No. 237/75, No. 112/77, No.235/77, No. 156/79, No. 53/80 and No. 16/81. These five or six notifications extended partial or full exemption at different times.For the exemption, certain conditions were also prescribed and are reproduced by the Collector; these are that the steel ingots should be manufactured from (2) a combination of the' materials referred to at (1) above with fresh unused steel melting scrap on which the appropriate duty of excise has been paid; and (3) iron in any crude form falling under item No.25 of the schedule on which the appropriate duty of excise has been paid in combination with the mat...
National Transport Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC611Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order' bearing No. S/49-1364/82-M dated 21-1-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. On the appeal being called, Shri Pal appearing for the Collector raised a preliminary objection as to the competence of the clearing agents to file the appeal on behalf of the appellants. He contended that the appellants have no authorisation authorising them to file the appeal. Shri Kandlur appearing for the appellants frankly admitted that they have not been authorised by the importer to file the appeal. He further submitted that the consignment which is the subject matter of the appeal is an old consignment and according to the existing practice the clearing agents were processing the matter and making claim for refund and filed the appeal.3. The Collector (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the ground that it is barred by time. Shri Kandlur. did not challenge that part of the findings of the Collector. He has submitted ...
Collector of Customs Vs. F.K. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC109
1. These proceedings relate to the notice dated 18.8.81 issued by the Central Government under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-284 & 285 dated 5.3.80 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The issue involved in this appeal is the correct classification, under Central Excise Tariff Schedule, of ophthalmic glass blanks for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods were imported after 1.3.79 on which date item No. 23A(4) was amended from : The goods, on import, were charged to additional duty of customs corresponding to central excise duty leviable under item No. 23A(4) of the CET. The claim for refund, of the additional duty preferred by the importer was rejected by the Assistant Collector. Though the Assistant Collector's order is by no means a speaking order, the reasoning appears to have been that, with the amendment of item No. 23A(4) on 1.3.79, the...
imtiaz Ali Vs. Nasim Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi36; 30(1986)DLT487; 1986RLR632
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'The Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd May, 1985 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appellant's application for eviction of the respondent on ground of nonpayment of rent. The Tribunal by the impugned Judgment held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus reversed the judgment and order dated 16th January, 1985 of the Additional ; Controller. (2) Briefly the facts are that on 16th July, 1982 the appellant filed an application for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act The appellant has alleged that he is the landlord and the respondent is his tenant in shop premises No. D-89. Khureji Khas. Shahdara. Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 exclusive of other charges ; the respondent has been in arrears of rent since 1st January, 1978 and be has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent in spit...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT506TriDel
1. The issue involved in all these three appeals being common they were heard together. The three respondents had claimed rebate of excise duty in terms of notification No. 108/78-CE dated 28.4.1978. The claim was rejected on the ground that the respondents did not fulfil the condition in clause 5 of the notification. But on appeal the claims were allowed by the Appellate Collector. The Central Government subsequently issued notice under section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act as it was of the view that the Appellate Collector was wrong in his conclusions. The basis therefor was that the factory of the respondents (in each of the cases) had not been on production in all the three years mentioned in the notification as the preceding years but had been started (in each of the cases) after the expiry of one or more of the said three years. The Central Government was of the view that in such circumstances the benefit of notification was not available to the respondents. The re...
Bhangar Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC58Tri(Delhi)
1. These are seven Revision Applications filed by the appellants before the Government of India. On the setting up of the Tribunal, these are transferred here and are being treated as appeals before us.2. Since all these appeals are related to the same issue, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. When the matter is called, Shri Ajwani, learned Senior Departmental Representative raises the preliminary point in respect of Appeal No.213/77, that the plea of brand name was not raised before the Assistant Collector. He seems to make the point that the appellants, therefore, should not be permitted to raise this pleas at this stage. We find that this plea was not only raise before the Appellate Collector but the Appellate Collector had also given it due consideration and passed orders thereon. There is, therefore, no ground for raising any objection to this plea.4. Shri J.J. Bhatt, learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that the basis stand of the appellants has always ...
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Apollo Tyres Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi382
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) This order disposes of defendant's application under Section 34, Arbitration Act. The facts giving rise to this application are that the plaintiff-M/s. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. l,60,633.83P as principal and Rs. 3,87,592.34P as interest against defendant-M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited on the ground that on 11th February 1975 the 'plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant for supply/erection and commissioning of two coal fired/water tube boilers and after the said job was completed by the plaintiff some differences arose between the parties on the question of amounts due to the plaintiff and vide settlement dated 25th February 1982 between the parties it was agreed that the defendant would in all pay a sum of Rs. 3,21,267.66P apart from interest which was to be decided by the managing directors of the plaintiff and defendant and in pursuance of the said settlement dated 25th February, 1982 a sum of Rs. 1,6...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT269TriDel
1. This is a Revision Application, originally filed before the Central Government, which stood transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as an appeal.2. The appellants imported a consignment of Jeep parts, transmission Synchroniser Blocking Rings (Semi-finished) under Bill of Entry No.718-D dated 12.9.1979 through Bombay Custom House. The goods were assessed by the Custom House under Heading 87.04/06(1) of the C.T.A., 1975 at the rate of 100% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty at 20% ad valorem plus additional duty of 8% ad valorem. Appellants filed an application for re-assessment of the goods and consequential refund of excise duty paid, but the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Unit, Bombay rejected the claim as unsubstantiated as the appellants did not produce the requisite documents despite sufficient time having been allowed by the Assistant Collector. An appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), but the same ...
income-tax Officer Vs. S.C.S Malik
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD268(Delhi)
1. The department is aggrieved of the order dated 1-10-1984 of the learned AAC, N-Range, New Delhi for the assessment year 1974-75.2. The assessee is an individual. As a result of a dispute between the assessee and his wife Smt. Jogesh Rani. Smt. Jogesh Rani started living separately since 1948. The assessee's wife also moved a petition for maintenance against the assessee before the Magistrate 1st Class, New Delhi under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The assessee had also a son named Shri Harchintan Singh. In 1948, the said son was a minor. An agreement was executed on 19-7-1948 between the assessee, his wife and his aforesaid son (through the guardianship of the assessee's wife) whereby it was agreed that the assessee would pay to his wife and minor son maintenance amounts at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from 1-6-1948. The maintenance so far as the assessee's wife was concerned, was to cease on the wife remarrying. The maintenance in respect of the minor son w...
J.R. Enterprises and ors. Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Limit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi188; 1986(2)ARBLR270(Delhi); [1990]69CompCas454(Delhi); ILR1986Delhi622; 1986RLR583
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is an application by the petitioners under Section 41 read with IInd Schedule of the Arbitration Act and Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking that pending disposal of their petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the respondents, viz., State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., be restrained from Realizing the amount of the bank guarantee bearing No. 23 of 1984 dated the 28th February, 1984 which was issued by the Andhra Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.(2) To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I may note a few admitted facts :- (1)That the petitioners entered into a contract with the respondent Corporation on 10th September, 1982 being contract No. STC|SUG|MOL|9|82-83 to procure from the nominated mills Indian Cane Malasses as per specifications in such quantities as may be released by the Government from time to time to enable the respondent to fulfill its obligations under its contract with the foreign buyers. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›