Delhi Court September 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.
Lee and Muirhead (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC264
1. The captioned appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported tube valves and the same were assessed to duty under 84.61(1). The appellants claimed refund on the plea that the goods were assessable under 84.61(2) as non-return valves. The learned Collector negatived their plea for the reason that the tube valves were different from the non-return valves inasmuch [as] in the B.T.N the two were separately mentioned.3. The learned advocate for the appellants pleaded that the goods were in the nature of non-return valves and were made of corrosion resistant material. He stated that both non-return and corrosion resistant valves were covered under heading 84.61(2). He conceded that the plea that the valves were corrosion resistant was not taken before the lower authority. On a query from the Bench, he stated that he has no catalogue to show that valves imported were made of corrosion resistant mate...
Collector of Customs Vs. Indian Potash Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC1114Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal by the Collector of Customs, Rajkot is liability of the respondents to customs duty in respect of 725.0 WIT of Di-Ammonium Phosphate reported to be lost or stolen out of a total quantity of 42,154.744 MT of the same imported by Bills of Entry Nos. D9 dated 28-9-1981 and D14 dated 3-2-1982. Further question is whether the demands raised against the respondent is barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Two consignments of Di-Ammonium Phosphate were imported and cleared from customs without payment of duty on the strength of Notification No. 144/80 dated 19-7-1980. Out of this quantity a shortage of 728.900 MT approximately of Di-Ammonium Phosphate was detected and report of the same lodged with Malia-Miyana Police (page 17 - Annexure 6 of the Paper Book). The Customs then issued show cause notice dated 22-3-1983 calling upon the respondents to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 17,83,287.38 on the quantity of 728.90...
Poonam JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR659(Delhi)
1. There was an agreement to sell House No. B-1/14, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for a consideration of Rs. 20 Lakhs. The petitioner paid Rs. 2 Lakhs by way of earnest money and balance of of Rs. 18 Lakhs was payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. The statement of transfer was furnished by the petitioner as required under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act. The Central Government, by the impugned order dated May 18, 1987, decided to purchase this property at an amount equal to the apparent consoderation. The provisions of section 269UC were challenged as ultra virus the constition. The writ petition has been admitted. An ex parte stay of the operation of the impunged order was granted on June 10, 1987. An application for modification of the order was moved by Income-tax department and that came up for hearing on June 26, 1987. An order was passed affecting the rights of respondent No. 3 without notice to him. That order has b...
Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundry and Steel Rolling Mills and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi368; 1987(2)ARBLR250(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT31
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this suit is to the award of the Arbitrator/dated 31st December 1977 on a dispute having been referred to him. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that in pursuance of an invitation to tender the respondent No. 1/objector gave an offer for the supply of C.I. Brake Blocks. This offer included a price variation clause which, inter alia, provided that the price offered would be subject to various in case of increase in price of the raw material being used. (3) The petitioner/Union of India accepted the afterlife its acceptance of tender dated 30th June 1975, by an advance acceptance of tender. Subsequently, a formal acceptance of tender was issued dated 7th August 1975 in which clause 7 read as follows : 'Conditions of Contract :- As contained in form No. DGS&D-68; (Revised) including excluding clause 24 thereof as amended to date will apply to this contract.' (Italics added). (4) According to respondent No. 1 the acceptance of tender was not unqualified ...
Veena Gael Vs. Pawan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1987
Reported in: 1987RLR646
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This Second appeal has been brought u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order of Shri V.S. Aggarwal, R.C Tribunal by which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 28.8.84 of Shri I.C. Tewari, A.R.C., vide which he had dismissed the petition brought by the appellant seeking possession of the premises in question in execution of the order made u/s 21 of the Act.(2) The facts, in brief are that after constructing a new house at E-31, Kalindi Colony, in 1973, the landlady appellant applied for permission u/s 21 of the said Act for creating a tenancy in favor of Vinod Kumar for three years mentioning that the premises are not needed by the landlady for 3 years in as much as her son was studying in Calcutta and after 3 years her son would come and reside in the said house and her daughter is also living in Veena Goel vs. Pawan Kumar Calcutta, she would also come and live in the house in question and that son of the appellant ...
Foam Rubber Factory Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT489TriDel
1.This is a purported appeal said to be under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, against what is said to be Order C.No.V/15A/2/54/77- Adjn. dated 18-6-1982, read with what is said to be order No. 275/82- H dated 13-12-1982 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. In response to the notice of hearing, the party who preferred the purported appeal, M/s. Foam Rubber Factory, has sent a telegram regretting inability to attend the hearing and requesting that the case be decided on merits. We have accordingly heard Smt. Saxena, Sr. D.R.for the respondent and perused the record.3. The so-called order dated 18.6.1982 of the Collector is, in fact, a communication addressed to M/s. Foam Rubber Factory by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Adjudication Branch, Hyderabad with reference to the former's letter dated 5-6-1982 to the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and informing the factory that the redeemed goods (redeemed in terms of Adjudication Order No. 151/...
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT438TriDel
1. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., Vadodara had filed a Revision Application to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order in appeal No.S/49-219/81-R, dated 18.5.82 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported Molybdenum Glass Electrodes vide Bill of Entry No. 2928, dated 26.4.80.The same were assessed to duty under Heading 85.12 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants had claimed the reassessment under Heading 85.11 or 85.18/27(3). The Assistant Collector had rejected the appellant's claim but had held that the correct classification of Molybdenum Glass Electrodes has to be under Heading 81.01/04(1) CTA 75, which attracts the same rate of duty as 85.12 of CTA 75; and as such the appellant w...
Hind Rubber Factory Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT654TriDel
1. The appellants filed a copy of the order dated 25-7-1987 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under which the appellants were permitted to withdraw their writ petition with liberty to file the appropriate application before this Tribunal on the question of prima facie merits of the appellants' appeal.2. The appellants then submitted that in response to the Collector's show cause notice, they were inspecting the documents relied on by the department at Jalandhar. On pages 117 to 128 of the paper book, there are periodical reports made by the appellants to the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Jalandhar regarding the progress of the inspection of records. These progress reports bear dates from 3-7-1985 to 26-7-1985.Possibly because of lack of communication between the Asstt. Collector at Jalandhar and the Collector at Chandigarh, the Collector did not wait for the inspection of records to be over and without waiting for reply of the appellants to the show cause notice passed the order-in-...
Krishan Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes758; 33(1987)DLT231
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this appeal Krishan Kumar has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment of 5th August, 1983. He has also challenged the legality of the order of the same date sentencing him to imprisonment for life. (2) The weapon of offence with which the appellant herein is stated to have stabbed the deceased Suresh Kumar and the other case property, including the clothes said to have been worn by the appellant at the the of commisson of offence were not produced before us during the course of arguments. Mr. E.T. Singh, learned counsel for the State made a statement that the case property is no longer in existence as it was destroyed on 8th May, 1986. Thus we have been deprived of the benefit of assessing the case fully. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that non-production of the case property in the present case is a serious infirmity which must be held to be fatal to th...
Puran Chand and Co. Vs. Ganesh Lal Tara Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi1; 1987RLR626
G.C. Jain, J.(1) 'WHETHER a tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession can claim the benefit of the protection afforded by the Rent Control Legislation after,the redemption of the mortgage Is the question which has been referred to this Full Bench for decision. (2) In Amar Prakash & Another v. Om Prakash Execution Case No. 83/73 decided on May 10, 1974 (1), a learned single Judge had held that the mortgagee in possession could not transfer a voter title than he himself had. He could not create an interest in the mortgaged property which may ensure beyond the termination of the interest as mortgagee. The tenancy created by the mortgagee terminates with the extinction of the mortgage Right of mating prudent management was co-terminus with his mortgagee rights. The tenant of the mortgagee in possession was little to vacate the mortgaged property on redemption. The decision was upheld in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in Prakasi Singh v. Amar Prakasi & others (EFA (OS) 6/74) de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »