Delhi Court April 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.
NavIn Kumar Goel Vs. Jawahar Lal Wahi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT338
Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the tenant is directed against the eviction order dated 6.10.1986 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. (2) The respondent-landlord-owner had filed a petition for eviction under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act as far back as July, 1981. It was alleged that the premises were. let for residential purpose and the same were bona fide required by the landlord for residence for himself and members of his family dependent upon him. It was further alleged that the respondent was the owner of the premises in dispute and he had no other suitable accommodation. The family of the respondent at that time consisted of himself, his wife, one married son, one daughler-in-law, one grand daughter aged about six months and daughter aged about 19 years. The accommodation available with the respondent was a drawing-cum-dining room, and two bed rooms besides the toilets W.C...
Needle Industries (India) Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT525TriDel
1. Under letter dated 10-9-1981 the Deputy Collector of Central Excise Coimbatore intimated the appellants M/s. Needle Industries (India) Pvt.Ltd. that permission sought for by them to avail proforma credit on the duty paid on printed boards and card board boxes with reference to the needles, snap fasteners, pins, etc. manufactured by them, and falling under TI 68 GET, was not permissible. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 9-2-1982. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government against the said order. On transfer thereof to this Tribunal the same is now before us as this deemed appeal.2. The appellants have indicated by their letters dated 21-1-1987 and 25-2-1987 that he will not be appearing in person. Accordingly we have heard Shri Vineet Kumar for the department and have perused the records.3. As mentioned earlier the letter of the Deputy Collector dated 10-9-1981 was in response to a letter by ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Madras Radiators and Pressings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC15
1. The counsel for M/s. Madras Radiators & Pressings Ltd., Mr. S.Sampath Kumar, Assistant Manager of the company, pressed the argument that they are not the people who are responsible to pay the duty if the goods were removed under Chapter X procedure. Their goods were removed free of duty to be used as original equipment and components in further manufacture of motor vehicles, engine assembly, etc., under Notifications 74/79-C.E., 75/79-C.E. and 167/79-C.E. All these notifications required that the concession in respect of such parts should follow the procedure set out in Chapter X. Mr. Kumar said that all the removals from their factory were under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. Under Rule 196 of this Chanter, if any of the goods obtained at concessional rate are not accounted for in the manner required in the application and in the manner that they were required to be used, the applicant must pay the duty leviable on such goods on demand by the central excise officer. In...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Famous Cine Laboratories and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT148TriDel
1. The department has filed this appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay dated 28.1.1983. The respondents have cleared Patch Prints of 35mm Black & White of exposed Cinematograph films falling under T.I37 of C.E.T. The clearance was without payment of duty on the ground that they were complete pictures and were duty free.2. A show cause notice was issued on 7.11.87 demanding a duty of Rs.2528/- on the ground that Patch Prints will fall under T.I.37(11).The respondents contended that since the films were duty free, Patch Prints could also be cleared duty free. The Asstt. Collector held that the Patch Prints would not be called complete feature film and that duty was recoverable at tariff rate.3. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) was of the view that to his understanding Notification 112/75 dt. 30.4.75 as amended by Notiication 129/76 dated 273.76 would be relevant to the issue and passed an order that in case these Patch Prints had been cleared...
Collector of Customs Vs. Amrutanjan Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC544Tri(Delhi)
1. When this matter came up for hearing on 8-4-1987, none appeared for the respondents. In a letter dated 3-4-1987, the respondents, however, requested this Tribunal to decide the case on the basis of the "grounds of cross objection" filed by them on 10.3.1987 in their absence as the amount involved in the appeal is small and it will be expensive to send their authorised representative. They also stated in the said letter that Tribunal's decision in the case of Gupta Trading Company v.Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1987(27) ELT 510, should not be followed in the present case. According to them, benefit of exemption notifications issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 should be granted in the matter of levy of additional duty when such or similar goods are imported. In view of the above request of the respondents, we asked Smt. J.K. Chander, learned JDR to argue the case on behalf of the Appellant-Collector. We heard her arguments. She stated that the present ca...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Crystal Paints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC384
1. The respondent-manufacturer, for excess duty paid between the period 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977, applied for refund of duty on 24-6-1978. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division 'P', Bombay by order dated 21-7-1979 rejected the claim as barred by limitation. In appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by Order No. V-2( 14)2026/79/644, dated 19-1-1983 held that at the material time old Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was in force and had limitation of one year for claiming refund from the date of payment of duty. The regular claim for refund lodged on 21-6-1978 with reference to duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977 was within limitation. With this findings, he allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with this decision, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay has presented this appeal to the Tribunal. The respondent has also file what it calls a Cross objection but which is in the nature of comments to the grounds of appeal.2. Notice of the d...
Hindustan Ferodo Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC19
1. The point of dispute in this case is whether the following asbestos products, which arise in the appellants' factory at an intermediate stage and are used by them captively for further manufacture of automative brake linings and clutch facings, are liable to central excise duty under Item 22F(4) of the Tariff :- 2. Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff, as in force during the material period, reads as under :- "22-F. Mineral fibres and yarn and manufactures therefrom, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, the following, namely : (3) any other mineral fibre or yarn, whether continuous or otherwise, such as, slag wool and rock wool; (4) other manufactures in which mineral fibres or yarn or both predominate or predominates in weight.3. We have heard both sides and given our earnest consideration to their submissions and the record. The appellants pressed for only two arguments before us, which we deal with in the succ...
Rati Ram and anr. Vs. Ram Bhaj Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi344; 32(1987)DLT287
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi dated 9/02/1987 whereby the application of the petitioners under Order39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed,(2) The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition, as stated by the petitioners, are as follows :-The petitioners and one Shri Mangal Sain respondent no. 8 herein by way of a registered sale deed dated 31/01/1972 purchased and measuring 5bighas and 16 bids was situated at Village Karawal Nagar, Illaqa, Shahdra, Delhi from Smt. Khazano widow of late Shri Likhi of Village Karawal Nagar, IllaqaShahdra, Delhi. Respondents 1 to 6 claimed their right in this land on account of two sale deeds dated 29/12/1971 alleged to have been executed bySmt. Khazano, Smt, Chhazia and respondent no. 7. Smt. Khazano filed a suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 29/12/1971 were fraudulent and that she had n...
Samey Pal Singh Vs. K.M. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT291
Goswamy, J.(1) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the order dated 24.10.1986 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi were by his first appeal against the order of eviction was dismissed.(2) The respondent filed an eviction petition under clauses (h) and (j)proviso (1) to section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In paragraph 18(a)of the petition, it was alleged as follows :- '18 (a) (1) The respondent built and acquired vacant possession ofa double storeyed house No. BH/381, Purbi Shalimar Bagh, RingRoad, New Delhi. As such the respondent is liable to be evicted under clause (h) of section 14(1) of the Delhi Control Act.'(3) It is not necessary to reproduce the pleadings regarding clause (j)inasmuch as the case based on the said clause was found against the landlord and has not been challenged either before the Tribunal or before this Court.The eviction order was passed under clause (h) of section 14(1) of the Act. In the original written statement as also in the a...
Krishan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Ram Lal Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT41; 1987(13)DRJ280
Leila Seth, J. (1) These are two connected matters pertaining to litigation between the same landlord and tenant and are being disposed of together. (2) These are the brief facts. On 23rd March, 1978, Mr. Ram Lal Kohli, the landlord of 164A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, let out the above-mentioned property to two brothers, Mr. Yogesh Kumar and Mr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal. The agreement of tenancy was for a period of three years. (3) Sometime in November, 1981 the landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which was numbered as 15 of 1982. Subsequently, on 1st June, 1983 he filed another petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, which was numbered as 341 of 1983. Notice of this petition was served at Kanpur on Mr. Yogesh Kumar on 10th June, 1983. The notice sent to Mr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal, at the same time, by registered post acknowledgment due was returned with the endorsement on the envelope dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »