Delhi Court June 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.
Prithvi Raj Tandon Vs. Subhash Chander Basra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT68
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is the plaintiff's application filed under Order 39 Rules 1and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit in which this application has been filed is for declaration that the plaintiff is the tenant of the first floor of the premises bearing No. 48/8, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, of which, defendant No. I is the owner and that the plaintiff is not liable to eviction in execution of an order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.N. Goswamy of this Court which order is dated 8.5.1990 and was made in C.M. (Main) 217/89. In the application the prayer is that defendant No. I who is the owner and landlord of the premises in question be restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of the aforesaid order Mr. Justice N.N. Goswamy. (2) There are two defendants. As noted above, the. first defendant is the owner and landlord of the premises in question. The second defendant was the original tenant of the premises in question. The defenda...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC98
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad against the order of the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents claimed concessional assessment for paper manufactured by them under Notification No. 128/77 on the basis of installed capacity of their plant stated to be 2000 metric tonnes per annum. They claimed exemption to the extent of 75% as against 60% allowed by the lower authority taking their installed capacity as over 2000 metric tonnes. The Assistant Collector ruled against them holding their installed capacity as over 2000 metric tonnes taking into consideration their declaration in their AL-4 application for issue of Central Excise Licence and subsequent intimation given by them in this regard. The Collector (Appeals) however took note of the facts placed before him and also evidence produced by the appellants including the certificate from the Ministry of Industry who accepted their plea that...
Indian Barytes and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC643Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is for allowing the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 77/83 dated 01-03-1983 applicable to Small Scale Industries in the calculation of the value of the Capital investment on Plant & Machinery installed in the industrial unit.2. The appellants are manufacturers of 'Barrium Carbonate and Sodium Sulphide' and have registered themselves with the Department of Industries as a Small Scale Industry with capital investment of Rs. 16,49,360.58 ps. The Department has, however, worked out the capital investment on Plant & Machinery as Rs. 23,31,439.75 ps. Against the order of the Collector, the appellants have contested the finding on the capital investment of Rs. 20,35,313.40, after conceding to some of the exclusions, which the Collector has allowed as being incorrect, on the following grounds :- (ii) Inclusion of the value of six driers which were dismantled and amount of Rs. 84,494 qualifies for deduction; (iii) The cost of civil works, viz. overhead tank...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. G. Glaridge and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC693Tri(Delhi)
1. In the ROM application, the applicants M/s. G. Glaridge & Co. Ltd. have prayed for rectification of the Tribunal's Order Nos. 543 to 546/1989-C on two counts, as stated in paragraphs 1(c), (d), (e) & (f) of the application. Briefly stating, the same are as follows: Show cause notice dated 24.11.1984 was issued by the Department seeking to change the classification of the applicants' products from T.I. 17 to T.I. 68. This show cause notice culminated in order dated 29.1.1985 passed by the Assistant Collector. An appeal was preferred by the applicants against that order and Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) passed Order No. M-1038/PN-169/85 on J0.6 1985 setting aside the Assistant Collector's order and deciding the classification under T.I. 17. No appeal was filed by the department against this order dated 10.6.1985 of Collector (Appeals). It is alleged in the ROM application that in spite of the above facts, the Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that the order dated 1...
Nestler Boiler Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT613TriDel
1. Since both the appeals arise out of a common order, these have been heard together and taken up for decision. The impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise No. 13/MP/85 dated 27-06-1985 is against the assessee - M/s. Nutherm Pvt. Ltd., G.I.D.C., Makarpura, Baroda, but in appeal before the Tribunal, the appellants' name is shown as M/s.Nestler Boiler Pvt. Ltd. This is consequent to the order of the Bombay High Court's order dated 28-02-1985 by which M/s. Nutherm Pvt. Ltd., Baroda, have been amalgamated with M/s. Nestler Boiler Pvt. Ltd. On this change in the name of the appellant consequent to the amalgamation, we proceed to deal with the appeals.2. The issue involved is whether the Air-fan/Blower which is an integral part of a burner which is manufactured by the appellant is liable for excise duty under the Tariff Item 33(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.3. In their Memorandum of Appeal, they state that at the relevant time they were manufacturing different types o...
Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC358Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar. Under Notification No.132/82-CE dated 21.4.1982, the effective rate of Central Excise duty on free-sale sugar and levy sugar was prescribed by the Government.Operative portion of that notification so far as is relevant to the present case was as follows: G.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Sub-clause (4) of Clause 50 of the Finance Bill, 1982 which clause has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 (16 of 1931), the force of Law, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in Column (1) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. l of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from so much of the duty of excise and special duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (2) and (3) of the said Table:-----...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Kishan Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR264(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT79
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner seeks revision of the order dated 7th March, 1990 of the Sub-ordinate Judge. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I admit the petition and proceed to dispose of the same. (2) The respondent was awarded a contract for car parking lot at Old Delhi Railway Station for a period of two years commencing from 8th March 1988. His tender was for the sum of Rs. 5,67,008.00 . The area licensed to him for car parking measured 15050 sq. ft. The agreement was to expire on 7th March, 1990. On 13th February, 1990 the respondent filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that the following disputes be referred to arbitration : (A)How much loss the petitioner has suffered due to non-providing the proper car parking space in terms of the agreement dated 8.3.88. (b) How much loss the petitioner has suffered on account of the falling down of the Campa Cola Board an...
Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC275
1. The issue for determination in the present appeal is the classification under the First Schedule (the "Schedule" for short) to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, of a 100 cubic metre capacity Balloon gas holder imported by the appellants. The appellants claimed assessment under Heading No. 59.11 (Sub-heading 5911.90) of the Schedule. However, the lower authorities classified the goods under Heading 40.16 (Sub-heading No. 4016.99) of the Schedule. Hence, the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri S. Chakraborty, DR, for the respondent-Collector.3. The balloon is made of polyamide (nylon) silk fabric coated on both sides with rubber. According to the statement of facts in the appeal memorandum, the appellants have an air separation plant which produces both liquid oxygen as well as low pressure gaseous oxygen. The liquid oxygen is either sold as liquid or as high pressure oxygen gas in cylinders after conversion into gas. The low pre...
Ramchand Choithram Sons Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT193TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 6-7-1984 which includes classified glass materials meant to be used as lenses under T.I. 23A(4).2. Initially the learned SDR raised a preliminary point regarding maintainability of the appeal in view of the fact that the Collector had dropped the proceedings. However subsequently he dropped the objection as the Collector's decision on classification would have a bearing on duty in respect of the goods which were seized but not confiscated.3. In view of the above position the Bench held that the appeal is maintainable and allow both the sides to make submission on merits.4. The learned counsel drew attention to the observations of the Collector with reference to the classification and stated that the learned Collector has erred inasmuch as the dictionary definition and the entry in the Encyclopaedia Britanica and also the ISI Standards relating to opthalmic lenses all go to show that s...
P.S.B. Finance Investment Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD9(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's second appeal arising out of its order for asst. year 1982-83.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the papers placed before us.3. The first ground relates to a disallowance of Rs. 3,17,126 alleged to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of payment of commission/service charges to one M/s Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. for arranging the sale of commercial space held by the assessee in a building proposed to be constructed by M/s Skipper Construction Pvt.Ltd. and to be known as Jhandewalan Towers. The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim as he was of the view that M/s Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., did not render any services to the assessee. In coming to this conclusion the ITO took note of (i) that Hemkunt Chemicals Company was not a property broker; (ii) it was a company ofSardar Inderjit Singh group to which the assessee belonged; (iii) the assessee has not brought on record ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »