Delhi Court August 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. Tulsipur Sugar Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC455Tri(Delhi)
1. Rebate in terms of Notification No. 203/72 dated 29.9.1972 had been granted to the respondents M/s. Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. and credit had been taken by them of the said amount in May, 1973. Subsequently on 12.8.1974 a demand under DD2 No. 585052 was raised by the Superintendent in respect of a sum of Rs. 8,677.20 P. on the ground that rebate to that extent was not available due to subsequent loss because of reprocessing. The respondents resisted the demand. Under order dated 11.11.1977 the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal by the respondents the Appellate Collector of Central Excise set aside the said order firstly on the ground that the demand was barred by time; secondly on the ground that no show cause notice had been issued preceding the demand and thirdly that on merits also the demand was not legal. This appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad is against the said order of the Appellate Collector.2. We have heard Smt. D. Saxena, SDR for the Depa...
Sree Veeraraghaua Industries Vs. Additional Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT479TriDel
1. The order under impugnment No. 11/83, dated 11-5-1983 was passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The dispute as it has reached us is only in respect of studs and eye bolts. According to the Additional Collector, the studs and eye bolts are both fasteners assessable under Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff, while the assessees say that they are not fasteners and are not assessable under Item 52.The two counsels advanced several arguments.2. The learned counsel for the appellant M/s. Sree Veeraraghaua Industries said that a stud is only a rod with threads at its ends to which nuts are affixed. They are not fastener, assessable under Item 52. It has no head and cannot bind the two bodies. It is a plain rod with threads at both ends; any fastening that may be done would only be by means of nuts required to be screwed to the threaded end. In ordinary trade parlance, the studs manufactured by them are not accepted as bolts. In respect of the eye bolt they are only us...
K.K. Jajodia Vs. State (C.B.i.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ968; 1988(1)Crimes177; 33(1987)DLT64
ORDER1. This motion for anticipatory bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner and relates to a case registered by C.B.I. under Section 120-B, I.P.C. and Ss. 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act. The petitioner along with his son and one Venugopal, a stenographer in the service of M/s. William Jacks Pvt. Ltd. since released on bail, are involved in the case. 2. The F.I.R. is based on a letter dt. 15-4-1987 received in the office of the C.B.I. and the case was actually registered on 17-4-1987. This letter has been written by one Navin Sikand of Trident Express, Freight Division of Trident Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. A-15/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. The following are the contents of the letter and the endorsement recorded thereon by S.P., C.B.I. : INFORMATION A complaint dt. 15-4-1987 along with the documents mentioned therein received by Shri S. N. Tewari, Deputy Supdt. of Police, C.B.I., S.P.B., SIU, XI, New Delhi has been received in this office today i.e. 17-4-1987 through...
O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT322
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The petitioner joined the Army as a Commissioned Officer in the Corps of Engineers. In November, 1982, he became an Acting Major and on 17.9.1983 he was posted as Deputy Commander Works Engineer (E & M) at Jalandhar Cantonment. (2) It appears that the petitioner had been complaining to the authorities from time to time about acts of corruption, malpractices and financial irregularities on the part of the officials of the Military Engineering Service at various places. There were also certain allegations against the petitioner. The competent authority, by an order dated 21st August, 1985 convened a Court of Inquiry to consider the petitioner's allegations against one Lachman Ram as well as a number of allegations against the petitioner. The Court of Inquiry conducted an enquiry and submitted its findings to the concerned authorities. (3) It is common ground that a decision was taken that disciplinary proceedings should be instituted departmentally against the petit...
Rajiv Aggarwal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 1987RLR558
Aggarwal, C.J. (1) The building known as 'Asha Deep' 9, Hailey Road, New Delhi, was constructed by M/s. Ansal & Seigal Properties Ltd. in 1970. It is a residential building and it has a basement. The petitioners are in occupation of different portions of the basement. They are using the portions in their occupation for business/office use. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short NDMC) granted two electric connections ; one for light and the second for power for the basement in 1971. The electric connections were only for domestic use.(2) On 20.7.87 a notice was given by the electricity deptt. of the Ndmc to the estate manager of M/s. Ansal & Seigal Properties Ltd. alleging misuse of the electric connections. The misuser, inter alia, alleged was (i) unauthorised extension of electric connections at various offices and stores in the basement and (ii) misuse of electric connection due to overloading such as use of air-conditioners and is also being used for commercial purposes while ...
Sheela David Vs. Lachhman Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)DRJ155
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the eviction order dated 17-12-1985 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi.(2) The respondents filed a petition under Section 14(1) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. It was pleaded that the respondents were the owners of the premises in dispute which were let to the petitioner in the year 1969-70. The respondents were in possession of four rooms and two rooms were likely to be vacated by another tenant and as such the respondents would be in possession of only six rooms. The said accommodation of six rooms was too short for the number of family members of the respondents.(3) After having obtained leave to defend the petitioner filed the written statement. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the respondents were not the owners and in any case the respondents had sufficient accommodation in their possession...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Essen Synthetics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC169
1. The question for decision in this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta is whether the respondents products Dibutyl Phthalate (hereinafter DBP) a mite repellant and Dimethyl Phthalate (hereinafter DMP) an insect repellent are eligible for exemption as insecticides under Notification No. 62/78 dated March 1, 1978.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta II Division, Calcutta by his order dated 14-7-1983, inter alia, held that insecticides had the same meaning as defined in Section 3 of Insecticides Act, -1968. The Schedule annexed to the Insecticides Act, 1968 did not include the two products DBP and DMP as insecticides. The respondents did not hold registration under Section 9(1) or licence under Section 13(1) of the Act ibid and for these reasons the two products could not be considered insecticide within the meaning of the notification and merit exemption thereunder. He also held the respondents guilty of wilful misstatement and suppression of facts an...
M.A. Kachwalia and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT485TriDel
1. The only issue for determination in this appeal is the correct classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the CET) of six consignments of glass mirrors imported by the appellants. The appellant's claim that the goods fell under Item No. 68 CET was rejected by the lower authorities, the lower authorities holding that the correct classification was under item 23(1) CET. It should be noted here that the classification under the CET is relevant for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Customs Act, 1975, which alone is in dispute in this appeal.2. We have heard Shri F.L. Berarwalla, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R. for the respondent.In Atul Glass Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors. 1986 (25) ELT 473(SC), the Supreme Court has considered the very question of classification of glass mirrors under the CET and ruled that Ite...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Del)101; [1988]173ITR94(Delhi)
1. By this application, the Commissioner of Income-tax seeks reference of as many as nine questions of law. However, questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are already covered by an earlier decision of this court in ITC No. 300 of 1983 (CIT v. Orissa Cement Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 72). For the reasons stated therein, we reject the application in so far as these questions are concerned. This leaves for consideration only questions Nos. 6 and 9. 2. So far as question No. 6 is concerned, we have called for a reference in somewhat similar circumstances in relation to the assessment year 1976-77 in ITC. No. 294 of 1983. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question for our decision : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed was entitled to the deletion the addition of Rs. 3,67,619 out of its interest claim ?' 3. Mr. Bishambar Lal, learned counsel for the assessed, submits that thoug...
Chand Sharma and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT164
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the allotments made by the respondents under the 20-Point Programme of the Government of India in village Harevli, Delhi and also for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to perform their duties in accordance with law.of Delhi & others (2) Respondent No. 2 Delhi Administration issued an order dated 18-8-1982 under Rule 178 (2) of the Delhi Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 1976, whereunder some guidelines were framed for purposes of alloting lands in village Harevli Subsequently, the aforesaid order was amended in a meeting held by the Lt. Governor on 3-9-1986 in the presence of the Executive Councillor and other officials, wherein it was provided that a Committee should be formed of the Block Development Officer, Tehsildar and the Village Pradhan who would receive the applications which would...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »