Delhi Court October 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.
Webel Telecommunications (i) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC339
1. The appellants manufacture Walkie Talkie sets and spare parts thereof. Sometime in 1985, Central Excise department noticed that the appellants were paying central excise duty on the value of co-axial feeder cables which they were supplying to their customers and were billing them in the invoices issued by them during the period 1-5-1985 to 30-6-1985. The appellants pleaded that the co-axial feeder cable was not manufactured by them but was purchased from outside sources and sold to their customers according to the specifications of the customers. They also stated that base station manufactured by them is marketable by itself and can be sold without co-axial feeder cable.2. The Assistant Collector after considering the appellants' representations held that as the appellants opted for the procedure under Notification No. 120-CE/75 and as the base stations and their co-axial feeder cables were invoiced in a common invoice, there was no question of separation of prices for the purchase...
Saroop Chand Vs. Anguri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT272; 1987(13)DRJ316; 1987RLR609
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. (1) This is second appeal directed against appellate order of Rent Control Tribunal dated 19-10-76 whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the landlady for eviction of appellant from premises in dispute on the ground contained in Clauses (e) and (h) to the proviso to 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.(2) The respondent/landlady had purchased this property in 1965 and after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (1 & C) Act, filed ejectment proceedings against the appellant on the aforesaid two grounds. The only point agitated relates to purpose of letting.(3) The premises in dispute consisted of one room measuring 10.2 X 8.4' feet. In the sale deed by which the property in dispute was purchased by the respondent/landlady, the premises in dispute were part of the two adjacent shops. In the sale deed the property in dispute is described as shop but in the plan filed with the ejectment petition the property in dispute w...
Mohd. Usman and anr. Vs. Abdul Ghani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)ARBLR152(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT10
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by a tenant against the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Control Tribunal Delhi passing order ejectment of the appellants from the premises in dispute under clause (d) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) The respondent-landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the appellants both under clause (h) as well as clause (d) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (3) Learned Additional Rent Controller by the impugned judgment ordered the ejectment of the appellants both under clauses (h) as well as (d) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tribunal on appeal by the appellants reversed the findings so far as the findings under clause (h) are concerned but affirmed the findings so far as under clause (d) of the proviso so sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act is concerned. Clause (d) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act reads as under : 'THAT the ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Cawnpore Sugar Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT11TriDel
1. On the appeal being taken up, Shri Sachar for the Appellate Collector made submissions on the condonation of delay application as also the objections raised in the earlier hearing as to the compliance with the requirements of Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.2. The objection raised in the earlier hearing was as to whether the Assistant Collector who had signed and verified the appeal was duly authorised, as required under Section 35-B(2) of the Act, to do so.This question had been raised since no copy of the authorisation by the Collector had been filed. Subsequent to the said hearing the Appellate Collector had filed an extract from the file of the Collector containing notes culminating in the order of the Collector dated 22-3-1983. The said order reads as follows: "Yes. As proposed please refer this case for filing up the review forthwith." Shri Sachar submits that this was the order under which the Collector authorised the filing of the appeal by the Assistant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›