Delhi Court May 1988 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. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC43
1. The question for decision in this appeal by the Revenue is eligiblity of the respondent to benefit of exemption under notification 123/81 dated 2-6-1981 as amended by notification 152/85 CE dated 1-7-1985 in respect of high speed diesel oil (HSD) used for running special purpose dumper of 120 T. capacity employed for carrying crude ore from the ore body to the crusher, a distance of nearly 3.5 kms.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by order dated 3-3-1986 found against the respondent but in appeal the Collector (Appeals), Madras by order dated 4-11-1986 found in favour of the respondent (appellant before him) and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with this decision the Revenue has come up in appeal to the Tribunal.3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri Sundar Rajan, JDR, for the appellant and Shri C. Chidambaram, Consultant, for the respondent were heard and papers perused. The exemption notification 123/81 dated 2-6-1981 as amended by 152/85-CE dated 1-7-1985 exempts excisable...
Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT662TriDel
1. By his order-in-appeal No. 97- CE/DLH/84 dated 30th April, 1984, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, decided that M/s.Hindustan Everest Tools must pay the" duty demanded from them and rejected their appeal.2. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, said that they had not manufactured the shackle plates since they were manufactured by another firm with whom they placed orders. They received the steel billets from one firm Bihar Alloys and sent them for forging the plates to another firm M/s. National Steel and General Mill. The finished shackle plates only were sent by them to the ordinance. There was no manufacturing by the assessees; they are manufacturers of hand tools.3. The learned counsel for the department referred to letter dated 13.9.1982 from the assessee to the Assistant Collector. He pointed out that under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the person who engages in manufacture is also to be counted a manufacturer himself. ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Narayani Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(37)ELT67TriDel
1. These seven appeals are filed by the assessees and the department and concern the assessment of steel products which the department held should be assessed as strips under Item 25(12) CET and the assessees say should be assessed under Item 25(8)CET as pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of Iron or steel.2. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the department disputed the claim that since the goods were not manufactured in strip mills, they should not be assessed as strips. He maintained that since the products have the contours and the cross-sections of strips as defined In the tariff, they should be assessed as strips, because that is the closest description that these goods relate to. On the opposite side, the learned counsel for the assessees maintained that the goods were not produced in strip mills and in accordance with the decision in the past of the Tribunal, they would not be assessable as strips. They do not have the contours of strips, because they do not...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Star Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC243
1. This is an appeal filed by Collector of Central Excise, Meerut against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.The short point arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the paper reel cores used on the rewinding and cutting machines for formation of paper reels of required sizes for ultimate clearance and sale are eligible for benefit of Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979. In terms of Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82, dated 28-2-1982 all excisable goods on which the duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff have been used as raw-material or component parts referred as inputs are exempt from so much of excise duty as is equivalent of the duty of excise already paid on the inputs.2. The Learned J.D.R. for the department, Shri C.V. Durghayya pleaded that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that paper reel cores on which the paper ...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. M.L. Malhotra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD603(Delhi)
1. These are appeals by the revenue arising out of the assessee's assessments to wealth-tax for asst. years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1979-80 and 1980-81. The only common ground raised in all these appeals is as under: The AAC has erred in directing to treat the land upon which godowns have been erected as agricultural land and to allow exemption under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the assessee. The assessee owns godowns and the WTO has included the value thereof in the net wealth of the assessee. The assessee claimed before the WTO that the said godowns amounted to agricultural land and, therefore, were exempt under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act.The WTO rejected this claim of the assessee and discussed the issue as below: The assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of agricultural lands and the aforesaid godowns in terms of Section 5(1)(iva) of the WT Act. Section 5(1)(iva) la...
Indian Paper Machinery and Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Sarwarth Lal Jai ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT190
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision has been brought against order of eviction dated October 28, 1986, of Shri B.B.Chaudhary, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on the ground of bonafide requirement of residence covered by clause (e) of sub-section I of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) Facts, in brief, are that the respondent-landlord is the owner of house No. H-42, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, which is two and a half storeyed building and he had constructed this building in the year 1967 and was living with his family members the ground floor of the said house while he had let out the first floor of this house comprising of four bed rooms, one drawing-cum dining and other facilities to the petitioner in November 1968 under an oral agreement. The landlord's father admittedly is the owner of house No. 205, Jor Bagh which has two bed rooms accommodation on the ground floor and similar type of accommodation on the first floor and one barsati room with a toilet on the s...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. P.B. Textile Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC1
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-229/84.CL, dated 3-4-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent M/s. P.B.Textile Works, Surat, imported "Partially Oriented Yarn" ("POY", for short) and deposited the goods in a bonded warehouse. At the time of clearance of the goods from bond, they were assessed inter alia to additional duty of customs on the basis of their denierage of 115D. The goods were thereafter texturised and the texturised yarn was cleared on payment of excise duty leviable thereon. Subsequently, the Department raised demands for duty on the respondent in respect of the ex-bond clearances of POY on the footing that additional duty of customs was liable to be paid on the basis of the denierage of the yarn after it was texturised. The respondent contended that subsequent texturisation of the POY had no nexus with the original denierage of the yarn at the time of its importation...
Chitavalasah Jute Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC353Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals were heard together with the consent of both the parties as these involve a common issue.2. The appeals relate to two manufacturers - M/s. Chitavalasah Jute Mills, Chittavalasah and M/s. Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Limited) Except in two cases where the Mills are in appeal before us, the Collector of Central Excise is the appellant in all other cases against the orders of the Collector of Central Exci$e (Appeals) Madras. The issues were dealt with by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) at length in his Order No. 29-32/83 (G) passed in the case of Chitavalasah Jute Mills and this Order of the Collector (Appeals) has been impugned in Appeal No. ED/1642/83-D filed by M/s. Chitavalasah Jute Mills and Appeal No. ED/2092/83-D filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur. Based on his findings in this order, the Collector (Appeals) has passed various other orders which are subject matter of the appeals in other cases before us. The Collector (Appeals) while adopt...
Rameshwar Lal Sharma Vs. Kohli Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT324
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This regular second appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.73 of the Addl. District Judge Delhi, whereby he allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for Rs. 2,000.00 with costs and future interest at the rate of 6/o per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of the amount. (2) The facts are not many. The parties entered into an agreement for sale of a bus chassis by the defendant to the plaintiff. An amount of Rs. 2,000.00 was given by the plaintiff to the defendant when the agreement was entered into. The plaintiff contends that this amount was given by way of advance or part-payment but the defendant contends that it was by way of earnest money. The contract of sale having fallen through the defendant claimed to have forfeited this amount. The plaintiff, however filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6.000.00 . Rs. 2.000.00 being the refund of part-payment/advance and Rs 4,000.00 as damages suffered ...
Parma Nand and anr. Vs. Qamar Jahan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT359
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The appellants, who are two in number, and claim to be the owners of property bearing No. IX/619, Moballa Churiwalan, Delhi, filed a suit for possession and damages and mesne profits in respect of a portion of first floor of the property against respondents Nos. I to 6. The suit of the appellants-plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 14.10.70. Respondents Nos. I to 6 appealed and by the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.3.1973 their appeal was accepted and they were held to be the tenants of the property in question. The learned Addl. District Judge, who heard the appeal, however, upheld the decree for recovery of Rs. 360.00 but only on account of arrears of rent. The trial court had granted this amount towards damages. Now, the plaintiffs have come in second appeal. (2) The appellants-plaintiffs claim through their father Nathu Ram who was the owner of the property in question. Respondents Nos. 7 to 10 are other heirs of Nathu R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »