Delhi Court November 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.
Dalmia Laminators Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC530
1. Notice dated 7-6-1979 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-XlI Division to the appellants M/s. Dalmia Laminators that they had been since 1-3-1975 manufacturing and removing laminated jute bags classifiable under Item 68 CET without taking out a licence therefor and without payment of central excise duty and that they had been doing so with intention to evade payment of the said duty. The appellants claimed that the subject goods were classifiable under Item 22A CET and that the demand under notice was not justifiable. The Assistant Collector rejected the said defence and held that the company was liable to pay duty under Item 68 CET for the period 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979. The reference to 5-6-1979 was for the reason that under Notification 204/79-CE dated 6-6-1979 laminated jute bags had been exempted from payment of duty under Item 68 CET. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 25-6-1982. This app...
Sir Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT91; 1988(14)DRJ287; 1988RLR126
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 13, 1985 passed by the Additional District Judge.(2) The plaintiff-appellant. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. is the owner of the property known as Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. It comprises of several residential flats, servant quarters and garages. Section 61(l)(a) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 191 I (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') empowers the respondent. New Delhi Municipal Committee, to impose a tax payable by the owner, on buildings and lands, not exceeding 12 1/2 per centum on the annual value. 'Annual value' as defined in Section 3(l)(b) of the Act, in the case of any house or building means the gross annual rent at which such house or building, together with its appurtenances and any furniture that may be let for use or enjoyment therewith, may reasonably be expected to let from year to year, subject to a deduction of 10 per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other exp...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. ProteIn Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT444TriDel
1. Questions involved in this appeal are whether Ossein and Gelatine manufactured by the respondents herein out of crushed bones and by an admixture of certain chemicals are products of bones eligible for exemption under Notification No. 221/79-CE, dated 30.6.79.2. Before we set out the rival contentions, it is appropriate to mention the manufacturing process of these two products. The respondents in their letter dated 24th December, 1980 addressed to the concerned Assistant Collector had stated as follows: "As an introduction, it is necessary to point out that Gelatine can be made from several sources such as pig skin, hides and bones. While these three sources can be utilised, PPI's (Respondents herein) manufacture is based on crushed bones and not from pig skin or hides. PPI manufactures Ossein and Gelatine. It may be understood that Qssein can only be produced out of bones and Ossein is not a product that emanates from pig skin or hides. Symbolically, the word 'OSS' connotes Bone ...
Krishna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC235
1. Before the subject applications could be taken up by the Bench learned JDR raised a preliminary point regarding jurisdiction of the North Regional Bench to decide the matter. He was of the view that the impugned order involved not only the question of ITC licence-whether it is valid or not-but also it involves interpretation of notification 117/F. No. 602/14/78-DBK dated 9-6-1978 as amended from time to time.This notification, according to the learned JDR, is one which exempts imported materials from payment of whole of customs duty subject to the utilisation in manufacture of goods for execution of one or more export orders. Since the impugned order, inter alia, involves interpretation of the exemption notification which means in effect determination of the question relating to rate of duty of customs the case would lie within the jurisdiction of a Special Bench. He has also stated that such cases had earlier been dealt with by Special Benches. He also cited some of the cases of t...
Hari Fertilizers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT225TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignment containing 3 items of valves and presented a Bill of Entry for clearance of the consignment claiming assessment under Heading 84.61(2) as "Isolating Valve". The appellants explained with the help of drawings and technical write-up the usage of the particular valves to the Assessing Officer. The Assistant Collector assessed the items under Heading 84.61(1) as Pipe Line Valves. The appellants preferred an appeal and the same was rejected.2. Sh. J.N. Banerjee, Consultant for the appellants wanted to file the clarification issued by the Importers regarding the nature of the goods. Since it was secured after the proceedings, the same was not admitted in evidence. The Ld. Consultant drew our attention to the functions of the valve. For easy reference, we reproduce (iii) of the grounds of appeal :- "These valves are used in Gas Generator. In the Generator at first coke is heated to a desired temperature which gives rise to some flue gas inside the gen...
Transactional Analytic Centre Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD400(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order made Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VI regarding the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. By this order, the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the assessments with the directions to the ITO, "to examine the evidence afresh and reframe the assessments in accordance with law.2. At the time of hearing, the 1d. counsel for the assessee made a preliminary grievance that the impugned proceedings have been taken up at the instance of someone whose wavelength is different than that at which the objects of the assessee institution are carried on because complaints have been filed against the assessee making allegations. Be as it may, we are not concerned with such matters because we have to decide the issues before us on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the law applicable thereto.3. The 1d. counsel for the assessee submitted that the consoli...
Delite Cinema Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ104; [1988]172ITR208(Delhi); [1988]68STC382(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J.1. The petitioner, Delite Cinema, has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing resolution No. 92 dated, May 22, 1972, passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for recovering the arrears of advertisement tax due from the petitioner for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. By virtue of the impugned resolution, a demand for a sum of Rs. 1,36,883.55 has been raised. 2. The averment of the petitioner is that earlier the advertisement tax was being charged on the basis of focus area of the screen of the petitioner's cinema and the petitioner had been paying advance advertisement tax for the relevant years and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been accepting the same. It was further averred that even section 142 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), does not contemplate calculation of advertisement tax on the basis of slide or shot projected on the screen but the tax has to be paid on the basis of focus are...
Devidayal Agro Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC338
1. The appellants imported Zinc Scrap which was Zinc Dross under Bill of Entry No. 181/79 cash No. 246, dated 3-6-1980. The goods were assessed to Customs duty under Heading 26.02/04 CTA. There is no dispute about the classification under Customs Tariff.2. The appellants were asked to pay additional duty of Customs (Countervailing duty) under Tariff Item No. 26B(1)-CET. They paid the same under protest and applied for refund before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund application on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 168/69-C.E. and a departmental clarification relied upon by the appellants was not available to the imported goods as the notification and the clarification were subject to actual use of Zinc Dross within the factory of production. The appellants appear to have referred to a High Court judgment in connection with the refund application. The Assistant Collector noted that the judgment was in respect of Aluminium Dross and not in...
Engineering Construction Corpn. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT709TriDel
1. The appellants had a project at Sri Lanka. For their own use, at the project's site, they exported an Ambassador Car on reimport basis. The car was exported through Madras Port on 3-1-1978. The project was completed on 31-5-1979 but the appellants had to remain in Sri Lanka for another period of 18 months for the completion of the work. On 22-12-1980, the appellants handed over their car to their Forwarding Agents. The car was loaded in S.V. Maria Antony Bolton Raj. On 31-12-1980, the ship sailed from Colombo to Tuticorin Port. The ship arrived in Tuticorin Port on 5-1-1981 and Import duty of Rs. 18,746.67 was levied on the ground that the car was re-imported after the stipulated period of three years. When the appellants claimed refund, the Asstt. Collector rejected the same. The Collector of Customs confirmed the findings, on the ground that the authorities had no discretion to extend the time limit prescribed under Section 20 of the Cusloiua Act, 1962. Hence the present appeal.2...
B.R. Malhotra Vs. M.R. Kukreja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT147
P.K. Babri, J. (1) This Civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order May 9,1985, of Shri J.M. Malik, Rent Controller, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) It is, indeed, not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of house No. E-111, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The family of the petitioner comprises of himself, his wife, one son, two daughters and the petitioner's, mother. The petitioner's father, who was alive at the time of filing of the petition, is stated to have died. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was 149 inducted as a tenant on the first floor of the premises for residential purposes in the year 1972. The petitioner alone with family members is in occupation of the ground floor of the said house which comprises of three bed rooms, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »