Delhi Court January 1990 Judgments

Kirit Packaging Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC422Tri(Delhi)

1. This application preferred by the appellant arises out of Order No.128/88C dated 19-2-1988 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.E/1869/86-C.2. Facts, briefly stated, .are that the appellant manufactured PVC 'Master Batches' and had been classifying the said product under T.I.14.1(i)(ii) of the CET. After amendment of Tariff Item 15A on 28-2-1982, the appellant filed a revised classification list on 1-12-1984 claiming full exemption in terms of Notification No. 83/83 CE dated 1-3-1983. The Assistant Collector held the product classifiable under T.1.14.1(i)(ii) and in appeal, the said classification was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). So, the appellant preferred appeal to this Tribunal and the Tribunal on 19-2-1988 passed the following order: "Following the Tribunal decision in National Organic Chemical Industries, we hold that master batches are classifiable under residuary Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 14.I(i)(ii) as claimed by Revenue or Tariff Item 15A(1) claimed by...

Print Packs Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(29)LC30Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants manufactured cardboard boxes in their factory situated in Calcutta. In some cases art-work and design printing were done on the body of cardboard boxes according to the orders of the customers. It is the appellants' case that for the purpose of designing and printing, the blocks and art-works were supplied by the customers or the appellants obtained the same at the expense of the customers.The question that arises in this appeal is whether the cost of such blocks and art-works forms part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act in short). The Assistant Collector held that these charges form an clement of value and so did the Appellate Collector. Hence this appeal originally filed as a revision application is transferred for being dealt with as an appeal.2. We heard Shri Agarwal, the learned Consultant for the appellants in support of the appeal and Shri Krishnamurihy, the learned SDR in opposition.3. Shri Agarwal subm...

Sultan Singh Vs. Jai Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1990Delhi314

ORDER1. This is a tenant's petition under S. 25-B(8) proviso of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against an order dated 9th of August, 1988 made by M. S. Sabharwal, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, directing eviction of the tenant from the premises in question on a petition made by the respondent-owner, on the ground of bona fide requirement under S. 14(1)(e) of the Act. The only question raised at this stage is whether the premises were let for residential purposes.2. The premises consist of two rooms, an improvised kitchen, a toilet, one common verandah, common side-open court-yard and common rear-open court-yard, in the back portion of property No. B-39, Satyawati Nagar, Ashok Vihar Phase III, Delhi. These premises were let out to the petitioner in September 1978.3. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence for himself...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Bhatia (No. 1)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1991]188ITR199(Delhi)

Kirpal, J.1. In view of our order dated January 10, 1990 in Income-tax Case No. 195 of 1987 (CIT v. K. L. Bhatia [1991] 187 ITR 644, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and deleting the addition made by the Income-tax Officer of Rs. 7,265 representing income from House No. E-73, Kalkaji, New Delhi ?' 2. The petition is disposed of. ...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. R.K. Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]183ITR640(Delhi)

Kirpal, J.1. This is an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, whereby the petitioner seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) who directed the valuation of shares of the private limited company by adopting the yield method as against rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the wealth-tax Officer was concerned with the valuation of the shares of Messrs. Doorvani cables (P.) Ltd. which were held by the respondent. The Wealth-tax Officer valued the said shares by applying rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules. An appeal was filed against this order and, following the decision of this court in Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT : [1986]159ITR549(Delhi) , the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) directed that the said shares should...

Assam Forest Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(30)LC487Tri(Delhi)

1. This is a transferred Revision application from Government of India which had been filed by M/s. Assam Forest Products (P) Ltd. (hereinafter called the appellants) under Section 36(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the rejection of their Review petition by the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong filed under Section 35A of the Act, vide his Office Order No. VI/14/Review petition 2/Val/80/22 dated 2-2-1981.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturing in their factory at Makum, Block Boards, Defective commercial plywood and Rejected tea chest panels among other products falling under Item 16B of Central Excise Tariff. It is the case of the appellants that they did not sell their products at the factory gate but were sold through different centres/branch offices situated in different parts of the country. They have submitted that the assessable values of the products have to be determined on the sale...

Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC33

1. The issue to be decided in this case is whether 'gummed paper tapes' manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under Item 60 of the Central Excise Tariff as "adhesive tapes all sorts..." or under Tariff Item 17(2) ibid. In the Order-in-original dated 8-2-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur, it is stated that gummed paper tapes have coatings of adhesives which are activated by application of solvent, for example water, and are being marketed and used in the form of tapes for the purpose of holding materials together and, therefore, these are classifiable under Tariff Item 60 and not under Item 17(2). In the appeal filed before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, the appellants have stated that they received duty-paid Kraft paper in reels and gave it a coating of Glue Gum on one side only and dried it on drying machine and thereafter rolled it in the form of reels. The resultant was gummed paper which was slit into different w...

Chhatar Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT329

Malik Sharief Ud-Din, J. (1) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on all material points. Rule D.B. (2) Since the matter is short and the pleadings are complete, we proceed to judgment. (3) The grievance of the petitioner is that his land in the North Zone of Delhi was acquired and pursuant to a scheme he was to be allotted a shop site in the north zone but instead in the year 1983 he was allotted shop No. 30, Pocket C-5. Yamunapuri, Delhi in East Zone. However, till 1986 no demand letter was issued uor was any demand made nor the possession of the aforesa.id shop was delivered to him. In the meanwhile, the petitioner who was aggrieved of having been allotted a shop site in East Zone instead of North Zone, requested for a change, which was allowed by the respondent and shop No. 11. Vaishali, Pitampura, North Zone near to his house was allotted to him. Pursuant to this allotment the petitioner deposited the entire amount demanded in respect of this shop and on 27th February...

Prakash Wati Vs. Mahavir Singh Kakkar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT317

N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the owner-landlady is directed against the order dated 30th October, 1982 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby her petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act was dismissed. (2) In paragraph 18(a) of the eviction petition filed by the petitioner it was alleged: 'The petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute. The property is residential and was let out to the respondent for residential purposes and the same has always been used by the respondent for residential purposes. The petitioner bona fide requires the premises in dispute for her own residence and for the residence of her family members dependant upon her. The petitioner is not in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband and two sons aged 16 and 11. Both the sons are school-going. The husband of the petitioner is a Com...

Raj Sudha Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Subhash Garg and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Prithvi Raj, President: (1) This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 6.11.89 passed by the District Forum. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had advertised for the sale of shops in Annuvarta Towers at Plot No. 129, Wazirpur Commercial Complex on 11.12.82. Shri Subhash Garg and Shri Pradeep Garg, the respondents, residents of E-859, Sarswati Vihar, New Delhi had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a shop of 30 sq. ft. at Rs. 1,600/- per sq. ft. The respondents paid the entire amount totalling Rs. 59,645/- as the cost of the shop. They asked for the physical possession of the shop but the opposite party delayed the matter on some pretexts or the other subsequently the respondents were given the physical possession of the shop bearing No. 114-B on ground floor but they were perturbed on seeing the shop having 13.25 sq. ft. of area against the payment of 31 sq. ft. The respondents also all...