Delhi Court May 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 Customs Vs. Western India Plywood Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC847Tri(Delhi)
1. These five appeals involve a common issue for determination. Hence they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts may be briefly stated. The appellants imported several consignments of timber from Burma. In accordance with the extant notifications under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, these consignments were assessed to nil basic customs duty by the Customs authorities. (We have used the expression "basic customs duty" to mean the duty of customs leviable in terms of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975). However, the authorities assessed these consignments to auxiliary duty of customs on the footing that there were two rates of basic duty applicable to timber, a nil rate applicable to imports from specified countries of origin including Burma and the other, the standard rate of duty specified in the Schedule which the authorities interpreted as a rate specified in relation to timber imported from all countries of origin except ...
Machine Tools India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT237TriDel
1. This was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government and on statutory transfer to the Tribunal and is now appeal before us.2. The Appellants imported punches and dies alongwith punch press.Admittedly the Punches and Dies were covered by separate Bill of Lading, separate invoice and separate value. The goods were assessed to custom duty under Heading 82.05 CTEA and were cleared. Subsequently the Appellants claimed, refund of a part of the duty of custom paid by them on the ground that the goods were re-classifiable under Heading 84.05/48 as parts of machine tools.3. The Assistant Collector held that the goods were not imported along with main machine and were charged separately by the supplier.Therefore, the Accessories (Condition) Rules ACR 1963 were not applicable. He therefore rejected the claim.4. The Appellate Collector before whom an appeal was filed held that in view of note 2(a) to Chapter 84 read with note l(ij) of Section XVI, the goods were to...
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. V.K. Goel and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi260
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, is directed against the order dated February 2, 1987, passed by G. C. Jain J. dismissing an appeal under rule 4, Chapter II, of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, against the order of the Registrar dated November 14, 1986, directing that certified copies of the proxies be supplied to the plaintiff in the suit as per the rules. 2. In order to appreciate the preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable, it is necessary to state certain facts. M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), defendant No. 2 in the suit/appellant before us, is a public limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. Shri V. K. Goel, plaintiff in the suit, is a registered shareholder of 50 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in the company. The secretary of the company issued on January 23, 1986, a notice for holding the 16th annual general meeting of the company on Marc...
Kirpa Ram Vs. Jagdish and Khub Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT241; 1988RLR206
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Brajesh Kumar, Judge Small Cause Court dated 23/02/1983, in suit No. 1551of 1980 dated 30/10/1980.(2) The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 235-from Kirpa Ram, the petitioner. It was the case of the defendant /petitioner before me, that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the premises, and no rent Was, thereforee, payable.(3) In this case there was a dispute between the parties whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the premises in question. The plaintiffs asserted that they were owners of the premises in question, so it had to be proved by them. The plaintiffs had to prove that they are the-landlords. The plaintiffs purported to produce what is termed as a 'Mukhtiamama'(General Power of Attorney). A 'Mukhtiamama' is not a title deed, it only confers powers on another.(4) The objection which was taken on behalf of the original defendant who is the petitioner before me, is ...
St. Giles Company Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT666TriDel
1. By Order-in-Appeal No, 985/Cal./81 dated 13-7-1981 the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. St. Giles Company, Calcutta against Order-in-Original dated 21-3-1978 on two grounds. The first ground was that the appeal was received in his office on 25-10-1979 and it was clearly barred by limitation under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that there was no provision empowering the Appellate Collector to condone the delay in filing the appeal after the period of three months stipulated in the said Act. The second ground was that the requisite court fee stamps had not been affixed on the memo of appeal. Against this order the assessee filed a revision application to the Central Government which, in terms of Section 35-P of the Act, has come on transfer to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. In the memo of appeal it is urged that the appellants should have been given an opp...
Meghalaya State Electricity Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT132TriDel
1. We considered the application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, the Appellants received the impugned order on 15-7-1986. The Appeal was received on 14th November, 1986 in a wrong form and was later rectified and filed in the correct form of the appeal.2. We have perused the affidavit filed by Shri Roland Vincent Lyngdoh, IAS, Chairman of the Appellants' Co. We have considered the reasons for delay as enumerated therein. We heard Shri Sharma in support of the application.4. We considered the arguments of both sides. We note that some of the delay is explained by the Appellants' wrongly preferring revision before the Govt. of India. The Appeal became due to be filed in October 1986, a time when in Calcutta "Puja" disrupts normal working of offices. Keeping of the circumstances in view, we condone the delay.5. The Ld. Consultant for the Appellants Sh. P.N. Sharma who has come from Calcutta requested that the Appeal may also be heard today. We granted the request, in the circumstan...
Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC429Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appellants manufacture aluminium and aluminium products. The raw materials which are required for the purpose of producing aluminium include :- These items are classified under Tariff Item 68. By virtue of Notification 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 the Central Government exempted all excisable goods on which duty of excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which goods falling udner Item 68 had been used from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs. The notification prescribes the procedure for the application of the notification. The Appellants were taking proforma credit in regard to the raw materials used by them in manufacturing aluminium. The unutilised credit of excise duty amounted to Rs. 1,51,874.59 as on 28-2-1982. Notification 201/79 underwent an amendment by virtue of Notification 105/82, dated 28-2-1982. After the publication of the Notification 105/82 the Department was not permitting the Appell...
Jagbir Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD15(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17-10-1985 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) VI, New Delhi for the A.Y. 1979-80. The main point involved relates to the addition due to three cash credits held to be unexplained.2. The assessee, an individual, is a goldsmith by profession who carries on business in the proprietary name of M/s. Jagjit Singh and Sons at 129, Moti Bazar, Delh-6. The assessee alleges to have borrowed an aggregate amount of Rs. 2,38,600 from eleven different persons on different dates during the assessment year in question, for the purchase of gold. The details of the three cash credits disputed in this appeal are as follows :-------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Name of the creditor Date Amount How Remarks Rs. given1. Sardar Singh 20-5-78 55,000 Cash Assessee is the2. Paramjit Singh 20-5-78 52,300 Cash He is the asses-3. Gurdeep Singh 30-5-78 5,000 Cash He is the as- All these cash cre...
Jagdish Raj Vs. Narinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ288
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This revision petition by the defendant is directed against the order dated 22-3-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the appeal of the plaintiff against the dismissal of his application under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.(2) The parties to this petition are real brothers. The petitioner is the elder brother while the respondent-plaintiff is younger brother. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant- petitioner from interfering in the business of the tea shop being carried on in premises bearing No. 17, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the said business and the defendant had nothing to do with the same. Along with the suit, respondent- plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 for a similar ad-interim injunction. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge but in appeal it was held that the pl...
Mahendra Nath and anr. Vs. Shiv Charan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ293
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 11, 1985 passed by the learned Add]. District Judge, Delhi where the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 were set aside but the appeal was dismissed on alleged agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2.(2) The plaintiffs had instituted a suit for permanent injunction straining defendants I and 2 from interfering with the business of the plaintiffs and from entering premises of their business at 224-A. Najaf Garh New Delhi. The case as set out in the plaint was that a partnership agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 in 1973 and as a consequence the business was being carried on in the premises mentioned above. Subsequently another agreement was executed in 1974 which had the effect of bringing in defendants I and 2 as partners. The case of the plaintiffs was that the agree...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »