Delhi Court May 1989 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 and Vs. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC511Tri(Delhi)
1. Notice of hearing was sent to the respondents. The respondents vide their letter dated 27th January, 1989 had intimated to the Registry that the matter may be decided on the basis of their written statement of facts. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal.2. Collector of Central Excise, Pune has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.3. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd., Kirloskarwadi supplied butterfly valves to the Bombay Municipal Corporation, Bombay along with gear box fitted and actuator as an accessory with a separate packing but under a common invoice. The respondents did not pay duty on the value of the actuator as the same was sent separately and was not a component part of butterfly valves.The butterfly valves could be operated manually as well as with the aid of electric power and the respondents were supplying two more attachments, namely, gear box electric actuator ...
Shree Krishna Woollen Mills (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC346
1. The only issue arising for determination in the present appeal is the classification under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter "the Schedule", for short) of "Synthetic Condensor Rubbing Aprons" imported by the appellants. The department classified them under heading No. 40.05/16 as articles of rubber and charged duty accordingly. The appellants' claim for classification of the goods under heading No. 84.37(1) as parts of textile machinery and for consequential refund of duty was rejected by the lower authorities.Hence this appeal.2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR, for the respondent-Collector and have perused the record.3. The appellants' contention is that the subject goods are parts of carding machines. A leaflet on "Condensor Rubbers", a photograph of the machine on which it is used and a write up by "WIRA - Technology and Productivity services for the Wool Textile Industry" have been ...
Pearl Agencies Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD342(Delhi)
ORDER ON SECOND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONPer Aggarwal, J. M. - After hearing the parties the aforesaid appeals were decided by a Bench of this Tribunals vide order dated 10-1-89. The assessed then moved an application dated 22-2-1989 purporting to be u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act (the Act). The same was dismissed by a Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 1-3-1989 by a reasoned order, though without giving the assessed an opportunity of personal/oral hearing. The Bench after very careful examination of the order and the record did not find any apparent mistake in its order.2. The assessed has now moved another application dated 20-3-1989 praying that the aforesaid order dated 1-3-1989 be recalled because it is an order non est in law, as it was passed without giving an opportunity of bearing to the assessed petitioner. For the contention that the order is non est for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner has, in the petition, stated that Amrit Narain, In re [C. W. No. 1077 of 1988]...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC337Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-appeal No. 116/86(6), dated 22nd July, 1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.In column No. 3 of the appeal memo the date of communication has been mentioned as 17th March, 1987. The matter had come up before the Bench for hearing on 16th May, 1988 and at the outset of the hearing Shri A.K. Jain, the learned advocate who had appeared on behalf of the respondent had stated that the order-in-appeal was passed on 22nd July, 1986 and the fair copy was attested on 17th September, 1986. On the objection of the advocate, the Bench had directed the appellant to file an affidavit in this regard supported with photo copies of the relevant records. In response the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, has filed an affidavit duly supported with the relevant records. Shri A.K.Jain has now submitted that the date of the order-in-appeal is 22nd July, 1986 and its communica...
Usha Micro Process Controls Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: (1991)LC138Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Usha Microprocess Controls Ltd., New Delhi, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of computers. They had filed a bill of entry in the Import Cargo Unit, C.W.C. Gurgaon Road, New Delhi on 11th August, 1983, registered at S.No. 31994, for the clearance of parts of graphic terminals, parts of floppy disk drives and cable etc. as per invoice attached to the said bill of entry, imported into India in one consignment covered under Airway Bill No. 229-1394-3718 (Kuwait Airways) executed on 7-7-1983 at Los Angeles. On examination of the said consignment conducted in the Air Cargo Unit in the presence of the representative of the appellants, it was found that the contents of the said consignment were, in fact, 75 complete units of Eagle IIE computers of models Eagle I, Eagle II and Eagle III in SKD condition 30 units each of Eagle I and Eagle II and 15 ...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Amod Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)(89)LC417Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order No. L-1278/BD-251/84 dated 13th July, 1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent, M/s. Amod Electricals, had filed two classification lists dated 16th September, 1983, viz., (1) covering bare copper wire finer than 2.00 mm (14 SWG), double paper covered copper wire finer than 2.00 mm (14 SWG) and transformer coils; and (2) bare aluminium wire finer than 3.25 mm (10 SWG), double paper covered aluminium wire finer than 3.25 mm (10 SWG) and transformer coils. They have classified the aforesaid six products under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and had claimed exemption under Notification No. 118/ 75-CE dated 30th April, 1975 (as amended) in respect of Bare and Double Paper Covered Copper Wire finer, than 2.00 mm as well as bare and double paper covered aluminium wire finer than 3.25 mm. Against trans...
Amitabh Textiles Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Factual backdrop: During the course of Annual Stock taking on 23-12-1983 in respect of Cotton yarn and Cellulosic spun yarn of the appellants Mills, certain quantities of yarn were found deficient in excess of two percent, as compared to the recorded balance. As a follow up action a show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why appropriate duty leviable on the deficiency be not demanded and penalty be not imposed, was issued. In reply it was contended that the alleged shortage was actually the losses in weight of yarn which do occur in the course of manufacture and due to normal causes of evaporation and dryage, and hence condonable. However, the Assistant Collector after the usual Adjudication proceedings allowed the condonation of deficiency upto 2.5 percent and consequently confirmed the demand of duty at appropriate rates leviable on the deficiency beyond ...
Pukh Raj JaIn Vs. Smt. Padma Kashyap and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi159; 39(1989)DLT70; 1989(17)DRJ187; 1989RLR546
1. Late Shri. K. C. Kashyap who was the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No. 2 let out the property hearing No. C-4/33 Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi to Shri. Pukhraj Jain, appellant herein for a limited period of three years after obtaining permission under S. 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 3rd December 1979, The premises were let purely for residential purpose. It was stated in the application that the premises were not let out under S. 21 previously and were in fact constructed for the use and occupation of Shri. Sudhir Kashyap, respondent No. 2 herein who would require the premises after he returns from Sweden. Shri. K. C. Kashap died on 19th November 1981 leaving behind a will dated 25-5-1981. Under the will the life interest in the property is given, to respondent No.1 and thereafter the property is to devolve on respondent No. 2. Though late Shri. K. C. Kashyap had other legal heirs they were not given any shar...
S. Bhupinder Singh Makkar Vs. Narinder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1989
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ97; 1989RLR380
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) During the pendency of Crl.M.(M) 650/88 under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Code') for quashing of the ex-parte order dated 25-1-J985 passed by Ms. Deepa Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Section 125 of the Code in favor of the respondent the petitioner has tiled this application for stay of the operation of the impugned order. At the time of the admission of the main petition on June 3, 1988, Santosh Duggal, J. stayed the execution proceedings till the next date. On July 12, 1988, my learned brother H. C. Goel J. stayed the operation of the impugned order till further orders. Thereafter, it appears that the Criminal Miscellaneous main as well as this criminal Miscellaneous went on lingering. There were many adjournments for on reason or the other. Ultimately, on April 27, 1989 finding that the disposal of the main petition under Section 482 of the Code may take sometime, I considered it desirable to decide the stay appli...
Ajit Prasad JaIn Vs. N.K. Widhani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi42; 38(1989)DLT456; 1990(26)ECC284
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Plaintiff seeks a decree of specific performance in respect of property No. 59, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi, owned by defendants I to 5, who are the sons of Defendant No. 6. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property with the plaintiff on 19.12.1976. The agreement was signed by defendant No. 6 as attorney of defendant No. 2 as well as on his own behalf. It was also signed by defendants 1, 3 to 5. A sum of Rs.10,000.00 in cash was paid as earnest money The sale price of the suit property was settled at Rs. 2,65,000.00 . The defendants had undertaken to give vacant possession of the. suit property to plaintiff soon after the payment of Rs. 1,65,000.00 to defendant No. 6 on behalf of the defendants. Another sum of Rs. 35,000/ was payable within 15 days of the date on which the permission of Land and Development Officer, New Delhi, is communicated to the plaintiff by defendant No. 6. he balance a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »