Delhi Court January 1987 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.
Ramesh Chand Vs. Om Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT334
N.N. Goawamy, J. (1) This petition by the tenant under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the eviction order dated 29-3-19b5. (2) The three landlord-owners namely Om Parkash. Brij Mohan and Dhanno Mal bad filed a petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant. In paragraph 18(a) of the petition it was stated that the tenanted premises were let out to the respondent for residential purpose and the respondent was using the same for the same purpose. It was stated that the premises are required bona fide by the owners for their residence and residence of the other members of their families. Admittedly the owners are 20 members of the family as each of the three owners have six or seven members of the family, the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have also their mother. Thus in all there are 20 members of the owners. It is also an admitted fact that when the present premises were purchased by th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dodsal Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC154
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, at Baroda dated 2.4.1985; The respondents are manufacturers of structurals sheets for electric towers falling under T.I. 68. They submitted a classification list under T.I. 68 and were paying duty in terms of Notification 119/75, dated 30.4.1975. On 12.2.1981 they filed a representation to cancel the classification list already approved by the Superintendent and treat the products as non-excisable. According to them, they were engaged in the activities as contractors for the supply and erection of transmission towers for Gujarat Electricity Board against their specific orders. They urged that they were doing job work of straitening, cutting into required lengths, bending, punching and galvanising steel angles, plates, channels, round bars etc. falling under T.I. 26AA. (The raw-materials were purchased by the Gujarat Electricity Board and supplied to the respondents.). T...
Tata Oil Mill Co. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC45
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have been using hydrogenated rice bran fatty acid oil for the manufacture of soap and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 25/75 for soap made from indigenous rice bran oil or mixture of such oil with any other oil from a certain quantum of duty based on the quantum of the rice bran oil used in the manufacture of such soap. The appellants claim is that the rice bran fatty acid and rice bran oil are the same things and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of concessional assessment on the soap in the manufacture of which rice bran fatty acid is used.The lower authority has, however, rejected the appellants' plea on the ground that rice bran fatty acid and rice bran oil are technically and commercially two separate commodities and, therefore, the concession available in respect of use of rice bran oil cannot be made applicable where the rice bran fatty acid is used. There is no dispute as to the fact that rice br...
Electronics Trade and Tech. Dev. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT454TriDel
1. The importers, M/s. Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corporation say that the machines DZM-180 mosaic character printers are computer sub-systems and classifiable under Heading 84.51/55(2) of the Customs Tariff, 1975, at 40% ad valorem according to Notification 272/76-Cus.2. The learned counsel for the importers argued that the reason for the action of the lower authorities was that they held that the machine, had application in telecommunication. The Assistant Collector also appears to have confused the DZM-180 with the DZM-180 RO. Their machine is not RO and it has no application in telecommunication. He referred to their catalogue for the mosaic-type character printer. He drew special attention to page 17 and the paragraph runs thus: The CI signal should be maintained by the co-operating external equipment until the printer sends the PEC signal (receipt confirmation) which means that the character code has been entered into the register on the Logic Board. The extern...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Motor Industries Co. Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT290TriDel
1. By his order F.No. V(34A) -540/VC/81/2030, dated 20.4.1982 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik decided that nozzle fitted with nozzle holders known as injectors or atomizers were assessable under Item 68-CET. He passed this order although the nozzles and nozzle holders had already paid duty under Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, agreed with this view in his order No. B-1627/PN-143/82, dated 8-10-1982, though he gave certain reliefs to the assessees in respect of the period that could be covered by the demand, holding that it should run only for six months.The main source of contention before us is the assessment of the atomizer/injector/nozzle fitted with nozzle holders which we shall call, for the sake of brevity, an injector.3. The learned counsel for the respondent M/s. Motor Industries Company claimed that the Item 34A covered nozzle and nozzle holder. This refers to articles which must necessarily be used ...
Karim Yusuf @ Sunil Vs. M.L. Wadhawan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ234; 1987(12)ECC144
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) I have heard Mr. Jethamalani in respect of Criminal Misc. Application No. 3 of 1987 by which he has sought to raise an additional ground and in that regard filed a copy of the remand application. Since this is a Habeas Corpus petition, there can be no serious objection to the raising of additional ground, particularly, in view of the fact, that the contents of the remand application, are not something new to the other side. Relying on the case of Smt. lcchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and others : [1981]1SCR640 , I allow this petition. In the case supra, the Supreme Court has clearly held that it would be no argument on the part of the detaining authority to say that a particular ground is not taken in the petition and the burden of proving that the detention is in accordance with the procedure laid down by law has always been placed by the court on the detaining authority. This is because Article 21 of the constitution provides in clear and explicitly ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Ii Vs. Riviera Apartments Private Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: [1989]179ITR525(Delhi)
This petition on behalf on the Commissioner of Income-tax raises an interesting point but it appears to us that as pointed out by the Tribunal, the language of the section is quite clear and that a reference is not called for.The assessment of the assessed was completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act for two sets of defaults : (1) failure to file a return and comply with the notices under section 142(1); and (2) failure to comply with the directions under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act.Subsequently, the assessed filed an application under section 146 of the Income-tax Act. In this application, it gave an Explanationn for not filing its return of income within time and for also not complying with notice under section 142(1). The Appellate Tribunal was satisfied with this Explanationn. The Appellate Tribunal, on this, held that the terms of section 146 were fulfillled and that the Income-tax Officer was bound to cancel the assessment under section 146. The Tribunal did no...
Almele Chemicals (P) Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT239TriDel
1. The appellants imported 'Dimethy Sulphoxide' under a Bill of Entry No. C-290 dated 8-12-1981. Claiming that the imported goods were drug intermediate used for the manufacture of a basic drug, namely, Trimethoprim I.P., the appellants claimed exemption from CV duty in terms of Serial No. 19 of Central Excise Notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1-3-1975.The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund claim on the ground that the imported goods could not be considered as 'drug intermediate" for the purpose of the Notification. The Appellate Collector, before whom an appeal was preferred, rejected the same holding that the imported goods constituted a compound having many applications and could not be considered as a 'drug' in common parlance, though one of the uses could be the use as a "medicine.Hence, the present appeal.2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none was present for the appellants, but the appellants requested, in writing, for a decision on merits. We, therefor...
Andhra Sugar Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT613TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who has upheld the levy of Central Excise duty on Oleum manufactured by the appellants claimed to be an intermediate product for die manufacture of chlorosulphonic acid.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had got approved a classification list in respect of Oleum which was described in the classification list so chargeable to duty under 14-G, but later in a subsequent classification list No. 7/81-82 dated 30.9.81, they included the item Oleum in the list for other good which was listed as non-excisable. They were issued a show cause notice in this regard and they were called upon to show as to why Oleum described as non-excisable should not be classified under item 14-G as Oleum was nothing but sulphuric acid. The appellants main plea before the lower authorities was that Oleum produced by them was an intermediate product which was not marketable and, as such, it was intended for cap...
Standard Cylinders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD504(Delhi)
1. The appellant-company being aggrieved by the order passed Under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, setting aside the assessment for assessment year 1980-81, has brought the issue in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.2. The assessee is a private limited company, which was incorporated on 27-11-1978. The first accounting year ended on 30-6-1979, which falls in assessment year 1980-81, the year in appeal. The company showed a loss of Rs. 6,760 in its return filed on 30-6-1980. The ITO after his examination of accounts and after considering the submissions made, modified the loss of Rs. 6,760 to that of Rs. 6,620. According to the Commissioner the assessment made was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He, therefore, caused a notice dated 22-2-1985 to be issued which runs as under: Scrutiny of the assessment for the asst. year 1980-81 reveals that asst. has not been correctly framed by the ITO. This is the first year of the company in which shareholder...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »