Delhi Court March 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT475TriDel
1. The applicant - Collector has raised the following questions of law arising out of Tribunal's Order No. A-504/86-NRB and Misc. 237/86-NRB, dated 30-9-1986 in Appeal No. E/1385/84-NRB and Order No. A/519/S6-NRB and Misc. 242/86-NRB, dated 30-9-1986 in A.No. ED/SB/1386/84-NRB :- " (i) Whether destruction of excisable goods without the permission of the competent Central Excise authorities and fulfilment of conditions as might have been imposed by the Collector of Central Excise by order in writing Under Rule 49(i) but with the permission of the U.P. Excise authorities can be called a violation of technical nature, consequently setting aside the demand of duty and reduction in penalty when the Rule 49 permits remission of duty only when the manufacturer claim their goods as unfit for consumption or for marketing before the proper Central Excise officers and subject to other condition as may be imposed by the Collector Central Excise by order in writing. (ii) Whether remission of duty ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Asian Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC169Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Asian Electronics Ltd. receive from some customers raw materials for fabrication/manufacture of capacitors and resistors. For the manufacture of capacitors they receive polyester film, polypropylene film, tissue paper, aluminium foil, tinned copper wire, aluminium cans, polypropylene containers, can covers and bushings and PCMT short (tags). For resistors they receive ceramic core, tinned copper wire, metal cap, lacquer. M/s. Asian Electronics claim that they did only job work on the raw materials supplied to them by their customers for manufacturing capacitors and resistors which they then return to the owners, charging them only for job work. The Central Excise, however, charged duty on the total value of the capacitors and resistors, i.e. the value of the raw materials and the cost of fabrication/ manufacture etc. This, say the manufacturers, was illegal, because under Notification No. 119/75-CE., they were entitled to exemption from paying any duty above the cost of the jo...
A.R. Chadha Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD237(Delhi)
While making valuation of property Wealth Tax Officer did not determine himself the standard rent as directed by Tribunal also did not consider applicability of rule 1BB, revision, therefore, justified.The Tribunal in its orders for assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72 had clearly expressed that issue regarding standard rent had to be determined by Wealth Tax Officer, if necessary after calling for further evidence. The Wealth Tax Officer had not taken this exercise while adopting the valuation allegedly on the basis of standard rent by assessee. Further, rule 1BB being procedural has been held to be retrospective and Wealth Tax Officer did not consider its applicability. That apart, Tribunal's orders which did not note the provisions of rule 1BB and amended rule 23(1) of the Income Tax Rules, could not have provided the Wealth Tax Officer a mode for determining market value of property for assessment year 1978-79.1. This appeal is directed against the order under Section 25 of the Wea...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ977; 1987(2)Crimes414; 31(1987)DLT318; 1987(13)DRJ5
ORDER1. In order to dispose of the present revision petition, this court is not required to go into the disputed questions of the fact. The bone of contention between the parties is the tenancy rights of shop No. 51AF, Kolhapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Suresh Kumar Kohli claims himself to be the tenant of the disputed premises since 8-12-78. Inder Sain Kohli, the father of the petitioner asserts his rights of tenancy in the said shop. He is supported by his sons Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar. 2. As the dispute could not be resolved amicably, Inder Sain Kohli filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge for permanent injunction against the petitioner and another on or about 30-4-1983. Along with the said Suit, the plaintiff also moved an application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2 C.P.C., praying for the grant of ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner and another from interfering in the peaceful possession of the shop. The ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by...
Cambridge Foundation Education Society Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT225
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The fight in the present case is about 2 acres of land which the petitioner wants should be allotted to it instead of Guru Singh Sabha, which is a registered society and is managing schools under the name of Guru Nanak Public School. (2) The petitioner had applied for allotment of 4 acres of land at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Its school is recognised by the Director of Education and according to the norms which have been set, a recognised Senior Secondary School's to be allotted four acres ofland; if available. (3) It is an admitted case of the parties that in 1977, the petitioner was informed vide a letter dated 19th February, 1977, that the D.DA. (Respondent No. 1) had decided to allot 4 acres of land in Rajouri Garden for consideration of a Senior Secondary School building at the rate of Rs. 5,000.00 per acre with annual ground rent of 5/o on the total premium. The petitioner was required to make the payment of Rs. 20,000.00 before possession of the land could be...
Harvir Girl Vs. Jagdish Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT310
S.B. Wad, J.1. Admitted.2. The eviction order was passed against the appellant under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant moved the Rent Control Tribunal under Order 41 Rule 27. C.P.C. for permitting to lead the additional evidence to show that there was a notification by the L&DO.; dated 24-11-1975 which permits the use of residential premises for running nursery and primary school. The Tribunal granted that permission and remanded the matter to the trial court with direction that if the L&DO.; does not produce the said notification the appellant would be at liberty to do so by leading evidence. The Tribunal also observed that this question goes to the root of the matter. If the Land and Development notification permits such a use then prima facie there is no violation of Section 14(1)(k) of D.R.C. Act. The appellant thereafter went before the Rent Controller and moved an application for amendment, of the written statement for incorporating the following :'the...
Mackinnons Forwarding Service Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT587aTriDel
1. Mackinnons Forwarding Service, Calcutta had filed a Revision Application to the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi on behalf of M/s. Dun-lop India Ltd., Calcutta being aggrieved from order in appeal No.CAL-CUS-253/1981 dated 15.7.1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 13IB of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. had imported rims which are parts of aero tyre retreading machine. The Revenue authorities had assessed the same under heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act,1975. The importers had filed a claim for refund of duty on the ground that the imported goods were assessable under heading 84.59(2) at the rate of 60% + 15%. The learned Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim as unsubstantiated for non-su...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›