Delhi Court May 1990 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.
Granite (India) Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT536TriDel
1. The issue involved is the classification of 'Gang Saw Blades' imported by the appellants. The department was seeking to classify under Chapter heading 82.01/04 and the appellants sought to classify the same under heading 84.45/48.2. Briefly, the appellants are engaged in cutting of Marble and Granite blocks of Gang Saw Machines which are installed in their factory and the blades are imported as replacements at regular intervals. On importation, the Assistant Collector had come to the conclusion that the Gang Saw Blades would be covered under heading 84.45/48. The basis for coming to this conclusion was that the blades are fitted in a frame which is attached to 4 pillars which in turn are fixed in the floor and would put the goods out of the purview of Chapter-82 and their use is in marble/granite cutting and they are correctly classifiable under heading 84.45/48 as Machine Tools for working metal or metal carbide stones etc. etc. This order of the Assistant Collector was, however, ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nuchem Plastics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC44
1. This appeal is preferred by the Department against the order-in-appeal No.250-CE/DLH/87 dated 14-9-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), whereby, he set aside the order-in-original No. 123/85 dated 8-11-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, NH IV, Faridabad. Facts may be briefly summarised as under : 2. The respondents had been manufacturing products known as Trescol Glue' manufactured from Urea and Formaldehyde alongwith certain other chemicals in a set ratio. This product is manufactured in different grades, viz., 'G', 'L', PW, 'W' and 'TUL' and according to the respondents, these are preparations which are specifically formulated for use as glue in plywood, paper and textile industries. The respondents had been manufacturing 'Prescol Glue' since 1964-65 and were paying duty on this product under Tariff Item 15-A(1).3. On 7-8-1978, the respondents, by a letter, contended that their product was not chargeable to duty under the ...
Subhash Chander Basra Vs. Tata Consultancy Services and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT459; 1990(18)DRJ341; 1990RLR416
N.N. Goswami, J.(1) This petition by the owner landlord is directed against the order dated 8-5-1989 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the appeal of respondent No. 2 was allowed and as a result the eviction petition filed by the petitioner which had been decreed by the Rent Controller stood dismissed. (2) The admitted facts are that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of premises No. 48/8, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The 1st floor of (be said premises was let out by the petitioner to respondent No. I, M/s. Tata Consultancy Services, hereinafter called the respondent company, on 16-12-1979 by a duly executed lease agreement dated 6 12-1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1200.00 . The lease agreement provided that the lease could be terminated on one month's notice and that the respondent company had the option to allot the flat to any of its employees. Admitted the premises were occupied by Shri A.R. Tandon, an employee of the respondent company. The said Shri A R. Tandon resigned...
Jagjit Pal Singh Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC22(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) by order dated 7th November, 1989 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing, keeping and transporting smuggled goods. Along with the grounds of detention the detenu was supplied with the relied upon document mentioned in the list enclosed with the grounds of detention. The order of detention and the continued detention of the petitioner is under challenge in this petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of detention and continued detention of the petitioner is illegal as some of the documents on which the detaining authority relied upon in passing the order of detention were not legible documents and a...
Dr. P.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and Others Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi290; 41(1990)DLT483; ILR1990Delhi244; 1990RLR318
ORDERKIRPAL, J. 1. After the promulgation of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 whereby some provisions were incorporated into the Delhi Rent Control Act, this is the second round of litigation which has come up before this Bench. In an earlier case of B. M. Chanana v. Union of India (1989) 4 DL 246, we had decided the validity of Sections 14-B, 14-C the 14-D as well as interpreted Section 14-C of the Act. The present bunch of writ petitions which has come up for hearing before us again pertains to the same provisions. 2. The present writ petition deals with the virus and the interpretation of Section 14-D of the Act. As there were a number of writ petition pending in this Court and in view of the fact that a large number of litigants were likely to be affected we permitted various counsel, who so desired, to appear and address arguments on all facets with regard to the interpretation and validity of the said provisions. 3. For the purpose of appreciating various issues which are...
Marchon Textile Ind. P. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: (1992)41ITD15(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a resident-company, appeals for the assessment year 1983-84, for which the previous year is stated to have ended on March 31, 1983. Feedback of the facts as it stands reproduced verbatim from the assessment order is as under : " 3. (i) The assessee has claimed in the return a deduction of Rs. 23,26,204 out of net profit as per profit and loss account, on account of capital gain on sale of machinery. In the report of the board of directors to the shareholders of the company dated September 2, 1983, a copy of which has been enclosed with the return of income, the assessee has explained as under : 'After meeting all the expenses and providing Rs. 1,69,448.03 towards depreciation for the year, the year's working has resulted in a net surplus of Rs. 27,91,629.58, which includes capital gains and depreciation written back as under : 'Even though the company has not incurred any production loss, it was forced to pay heavy interest on bank advances, hence the poor working res...
Kishan Lal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD152(Delhi)
1. These 11 appeals filed by the assessee arise out of the orders dated 26-6-1986 (assessment years 1970-71 to 1979-80) and 11-11-1986 (for assessment year 1981-82) of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bareilly.2. The assessee is an individual who carried on business in furniture under the name and style of M/s. Jagat Furniture House, Bareilly in his individual capacity. Returns were filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74 originally on 26-12-1977. For the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78 original returns were filed on 7-11-1977. For assessment year 1978-79, the return was filed on 31-3-1979, and for the assessment year 1979-80, it was filed on 30-8-1979. So far as the assessment year 1981-82 is concerned, return was filed on 19-11-1981. In the original returns filed for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1977-78, income had been returned from house property No. 87-B, Civil Lines, Bareilly. However, in the revised returns filed for all these y...
Rajinder Kaur Bedi and anr. Vs. Gurdial Singh Bedi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT259; 1990RLR298
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this revision petition, the petitioners seek to revise the order dated 28.3.1990, which has been passed by Shri Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 111 of 1988. (2) I find from the papers that have been filed in this case, that there is a previous history. The Supreme Court had, vide its order dated 24.9.1985, stated as follow :- 'THIS case has come up before us for number of times. It is painful to see how the decree passed by the High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 431/77 which is affirmed finally by this court in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No. 12340/83 and the order passed by the High Court on 9.11.83 in F.A.O. No. 114/83 which is affirmed by this Court on 6.1.84 in Slp (CIVIL) No. 14828 and 14834 of 1983 and attempted-to be frustrated by the petitioner G.S. Bedi his wife Shakuntala Kaur and daughters Rajinder Kaur, Surjit Kaur and Parvinder Kaur, who have appeared be Fore us one after another, speaking and acting on behalf of the petit...
Heli Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC223Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated Nil passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order in assessment dated 10-9-1986 passed by the Asst. Collector of Customs Group 'G' Bombay Customs House holding that the products called VESTOLEN. P 6522 Grey and VESTOLEN. P 6502 block, being block copolymers are ineligible for the exemption under Notification 227/76 dated 2-8-1976. It is an admitted fact that the products fall under Chapter 39 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Asstt. Collector referred to the subheading note under Chapter 39 of Customs Tariff Act, and following it, found that block-copolymers are to be classified in the same sub-heading as homopolymer of predominant co-monomer provided that such copolymer is not specifically covered by any other subheading, and that looking to the sub-heading 3902 it is seen that copolymer of propylene had a specific sub-heading 3902.30. The Asstt. Collector concluded that in view of this block copolymers are ...
Prabhat Paper Convertors Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT549TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated nil passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi upholding the order of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad-II dated 14-1-1982 and 26-10-1981. The appellants claimed refund on Central excise duty paid on bituminised craft paper on the ground that the Madras High Court in the case of Kwality Coated Products v. Govt. of India decided on 27-8-1980 reported in 1980 (6) ELT 579 (Mad.) had held that excise duty on bituminised water proof paper was not valid in law. The Asstt.Collector rejected claim and the appeal against the Asstt. Collector's order was rejected by the Collector (Appeals).2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon. Single Judge of the Bombay High Court as upheld in appeal by the Division Bench of that Court in the case of Babubhai Nyalchand Mehta v. U.O.I, reported in 1988 (16) ECR 54 and at page 321 to the effect tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »