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.
Kwality Containers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC158
1. According to the appellants M/s. Kwality Containers (P) Ltd. they manufacture pilfer proof caps falling under T.I. 12 CET as also aluminium tear-off vial seals and aluminium tear-down vial seals, falling under T.I.-68 CET. In respect of the pilfer proof caps they were claiming exemption under notification 83/83 and in respect of the other aluminium vial seals they were claiming exemption under notification 77/83. In respect of these aluminium vial seals the department had a doubt on the classifiability under TI 68 but, subsequently, the Assistant Collector under order dated 8-10-1980 settled their classification under TI 68 CET.2. After a visit to their factory on 21-1-1985 during the course of which 3,31,000 pieces of tear-off and tear-down vial seals were seized under the belief that they are classifiable under TI 42 CET and not under TI 68 CET, action was initiated by issue of notice dated 6-6-1985. It was alleged that as these seals had been manufactured and cleared without pay...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Del)334
S. Ranganathan, J. - We have heard both the counsels and we are of opinion that the first two questions on which reference is sought should be directed after slightly modifying the questions and consolidating them also. We direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question for the decision of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessed is entitled to the deductions of the sums of Rs. 1,65,860 and Rs. 25,000 as revenue expenditure ?'2. So far as the third question is concerned we think that it also raises a matter of principle which should be referred. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question also :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in permitting the assessed to raise the question regarding weighted deduction in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,90,860 ?'3. We may also mention that while submitting statement of the case the Tribunal should al...
Collector of Customs Vs. M.R.F. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT558TriDel
1. The present revenue's appeal is a transferred matter to be treated as an appeal which was in the nature of review show cause notice. A notice of hearing was sent to the respondents and the respondents vide their telegram have intimated that the matter may, be decided on merits in their absence and in the telegram the respondents have also mentioned that the Review Show Cause Notice issued by the revenue authorities under erstwhile Section 131 of the Customs Act was hit by limitation.2. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellants states that the review show cuase notice is dated 9-11-1981 and the same was issued in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Gopinath states that there is no limitation for the issue of review show cause notice under Sub-section (3). The limitation was only under Sub-sections (4) and (5). He further states that in the present matter there is dispute of classification and a...
G.S. Atwal and Co. (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Projects Constru ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi243; [1990]69CompCas601(Delhi); 1978RLR396
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, is directed against the order dated February 4, 1987, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.C. Jain, a learned single judge of this court, dismissing an application of the appellant under section 41, read with Schedule II, of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for the grant of interim relief restraining the National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. from enforcing the bank guarantee dated July 25, 1985, furnished by the United Commercial Bank through its branch at Calcutta. 2. The National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (for short, called 'the NHPC') floated tenders in respect of the construction of one of the component units of the projects known as the 'Power House Block'. The National Project Construction Corporation Ltd., the respondent was awarded the work. The appellant was awarded subsequently as a subcontractor the work of 'Construction of Protection Block and Stage- II Power House and ancillary work...
Khedut Oil Cake Industries and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi88; 32(1987)DLT297
G.C. Jain, J. (1) M/S. Khedut Oil Cake Industries, Plaintiff No. 1, andM/s. Khedul Oil Traders, plaintiff No. 2, are partnership firms stated to be registered under the Indian Partnership Act. On 21/06/1969 plaintiffNo, 1 tendered 281 .20 quintals of refined Ground Nut Oil to the Western Railways at Dhoraji Factory Siding for dispatch to Delhi Sarai Rohilla viaMSH-RE. The said oil was loaded in tank Wagon No. BVOIL-NE-46865and was booked by the officials of the Western Railway ex Dhoraji Factory Siding to Delhi Sarai Rohilla vide railway receipt No. 289352, invoice No. 46 dated June 21,1969. The consignee was self. Receipt was however endorsed with t (2) The said Wagon was part of 806 Dn Phulera-Rewari Diesel good strain which derailed at the Jhilo-Dabla Section. The Wagon in question was one of the wagons which was also derailed. On 19/10/1969 refined ground nut oil weighing 64 quintals as per weight taken at railway weighbridge, was delivered to the plaintiffs. A further delivery of ...
Raj Kumari Sharma Vs. Rajinder Nath Dewan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi323; 1987(13)DRJ139
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The dec ision of these appeals turns upon the construction of the Will as to the nature of the estate granted by the testator to his widow, whether it was a 'woman's estate' or 'widow's estate' under Hindu Law or merely a limited 'life estaie' and to the scope and effect of Section 111 of the Indian Secession Act, 1925 as to the vesting of the estate in the class of persons described as legal heirs of the testator.(2) The plaintiff who is the appellant herein and defendants 6, 7 and 8 are the daughters of Shri Ram Nath Dewan and defendant No. 1 was his son (now represented by his legal heirs). Smt. Satyawati was the wife of Shri Ram Nath Dewan and the mother of plaintiff, defendants 1, 6, 7 and 8. Shri Ram Nath Dewan acquired perpetual lease hold rights in respect of plot No. 5, Doctor's Lane, New Delhi. He constructed a building on the said plot of land known as No. 5, Doctor's Lane, New Delhi. Shri Ram Nath Dewan executed a registered Will and testament on April 10...
Sunil Puri and ors. Vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT127
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 19th May 1986 whereby the Additional Rent Controller allowed the prayer of the respondent to lead evidence on its objection to the petition for recovery of possession in respect of premises bearing no. 12, Friends Colony, New Delhi let out to the respondent company under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act vide order dated 17th August 1977 for a limited period of 64 months. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Rent Controller failed to appreciate that the objections filed by the respondent company were belated and an after-thought and the main purpose in filing its objection was only to delay the execution. It was further submitted that the court below also failed to consider the subsequent events and ought to have considered the application in the light of all the documents filed Along wit...
Mandovi Pellets Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT465TriDel
1. The Apellants M/s. Mandovi Pellets Ltd., Goa, is a Public Limited Company in joint sector, having an iron ore pelletization plant. In 1977 they imported the plant, machinery, equipments and spare parts for use in the plant. They were granted the concession available to the goods under Notification No. 324/CUS/76. Among the goods imported, there was a consignment of "recuperation fan shafts". When erection was going on towards the end of 1978 it was found that one of the fan shafts was damaged and could not be used. According to the appellants, the damage having been discovered during the warranty period, the exporters offered free repair and the shaft was sent to Germany under proper customs supervision. After repair, the fan shaft was brought to India in the month of December, 1979. The appellants sought clearance of the shaft, duty free, under Notification 324/76. But the customs department did not agree and charged duty on the shaft. However, the benefit of Notification No. 204/...
Re-rolling Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT115TriDel
1. This matter had already come before the bench, when a preliminary point was decided by order No. Misc. 1/87-B1. In that order the Tribunal, by a majority decided that an order of the Collector (Appeals) passed under Section 35E (4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 can be appealed to this Tribunal. The present enquiry is, therefore, only in respect of the merits of the case.2. By his order No. 145/Section 35E of CEx. SA1944/OR/83, dated 22-9-1983, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta gave a finding which should be reproduced so that his reasonings and the facts of the case can be understood clearly. He said in the last paragraph of his order that: "In the similar case arising from the same issue in which the appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector No. 15/V(26AA) 3-21 SC/82/9404, dated 6.11.82 it was found that order No. 196B of 1980, dated 29.2.1980 of the CBEC remains unchallenged. Therefore, the order of the Board that the ap...
Chamundi Vastralankaran Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT131TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India, which has been transferred to the Tribunal, and is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants are a partnership concern in the small scale sector engaged in the printing of pure silk sarees falling under Item 20 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were exempt from payment of duty.During the later half of 1980 they started on experimental basis hand printing of viscose sarees without the aid of any machine operated by power of steam. Man-made fabrics fall under Item 22. The appellants submit that they were not using any machine in the printing of these sarees and they were not liable to pay the additional duty of excise in terms of Notification No 179/72, dated 24-4-1972 as amended by Notification No. 298/79, dated 24-11-1979. On 28-11-1980 the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the appellants and seized 107 art silk sarees valued at Rs. 8,560.00. The appellants explained to the Assistant Collector an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »