Delhi Court October 1996 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.
Delton Cables Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT555TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Delton Cables Limited, the only issue for our consideration is whether the Insulated Wires and Cables of Copper having a Sectional area of 1.5085 sq. mm. will be classifiable under Sub-Item (1) of Item No. 33B of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, or under Sub-Item No. (2) thereof. The Sub-item (1) and Sub-item (2) read as under :- "Tariff Item No. 33B (1): Insulated wires and cables of copper, aluminium or other metals and alloys, whether sheathed or un-sheathed, the conductor of any core of which, not being one specially designed as a pilot core has a sectional area not exceeding 1.5 sq.mm. in the case of copper, or not exceeding 2.5 sq.mm. in the case of aluminium or of not more than equivalent conductivity as of copper in the case of other metals and alloys -15% adv.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi had taken a view that the sectional area of 1.5085 sq. mm. had to be taken as sectional area not exceeding 1.5 sq. mm. for the c...
Hingorani Air Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT513TriDel
1. The appellants were a small scale industrial unit manufacturing oxygen gas and availing benefit of notification granting exemption for clearance below a certain value limit. The oxygen was sold to 6 buyers, about 51% to 78% being sold to M/s. G.S. Gas Agency. Shri Gopal Hingorani was the Managing Director of the appellant company with Shri Kishan Hingorani, his son as the other Director. Shri G.S. Gas Agency was the sole proprietary concern of Smt. Gita the wife of Shri Gopal Hingorani. After recording the statement of Shri Gopal Hingorani the jurisdictional officers were of the belief that M/s. G.S. Gases were "related persons" of the appellant unit and, therefore, the value at which such goods were sold by such related persons to their customers, should be taken to be the value for purpose of assessment at the manufacturers end. On such recalculation the total value of clearances made to G.S. Gas Agency as well as to others were found to be higher than the limits specified by the...
Nippon Precision Bearing Ind. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT57TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 9-6-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay confirming the order-in-original denying the benefit of Notification No. 146/86 in respect of parts of ball bearing by applying Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff. In this case the question of classification of the Item under sub-heading 8482.10 of Customs Tariff, 1975 and the applicability of Rule 2(a) for the purpose of classification is not in dispute. The short question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the interpretative Rule 2(a) can be applied for interpreting the provision of a notification. S. No. 3 of Notification No. 146/86 grants benefit to:(a)0.019 or more but not more [than 0.082 150% ad valorem plus Rs. 6 per b(b)0.106 or more but not more than 0.199 150% ad valorem plus Rs. 9 per b(c) 0.288 or more but not more than 0.457 150% ad valorem plus Rs. 17 per(d) 0.633 or more but not more than 0.933 100% ad valorem Rs. 26 per beari The notification exe...
Shroff Textiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC364Tri(Delhi)
1. In both the appeals, common question of facts and law is involved and hence we have taken up together for disposal as per law. The misc.application for production of additional documents was heard in open Court and allowed.The appellant is aggrieved with the Order-in-Original 16/88, dated 6-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. By this order, the ld. Collector has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 7,30,262.97 on low density polyethylene expanded flexible (cellular) sheets manufactured and cleared by them during the period from 4-3-1986 to 9-12-1986 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has also ordered for confiscation of low density polyethylene flexible (cellular) sheets measuring 16807.9 L.Mtrs. and 1050 kgs. of scrap valued at Rs. 5,68,213.00 under seizure under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2), Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, he has given an opt...
Kirloskar Cummins Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT452TriDel
1. These are appeals against the orders of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 1-12-1986 and 10-12-1986.2. The appellants have sent a letter received on 1-12-1995 regretting their inability to attend in person and requesting that the personal hearing may be waived and the appeal may be considered on merits.3. They have also mentioned in this letter that the issue involved in the appeal has already been settled by the Tribunal by several decisions cited by them and further added that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the Department against Tribunal's decision and therefore, prayed that the case may be decided accordingly.4. We have, therefore, gone through the records and allowed learned DR to proceed with the matter.5. Learned DR stated that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, of various internal combustion engines (diesel engines). These engines are ultimately vised for various stationary/industrial purposes such as generato...
Arun Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Subhadra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: I(1997)BC365; 64(1996)DLT737; (1997)115PLR9
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This revision is directed against an order dated 23.2.1985 dismissing the application of the defendant/petitioner under Order xxxvii Rule 3 read with Rule 7 and under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code and decreeing the suit. (2) The relevant facts giving rise to the present revision are as under : The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit under Order xxxvii for recovery of Rs. 50,000.00 on the basis of three cheques; one of Rs. 30,000 .00 dated 30th April, 1982; another for Rs.lO,000.00 dated 5th May,1982 and the third one for Rs.l0,000.00 dated 8th May, 1982. These three cheques were issued by the petitioner in favor of the opposite party in consideration of payment of taxi charges hired by the opposite party for the business purposes of the defendant/petitioner between 11.11.1981 up to middle of February, 1982. All the three cheques were dishonoured. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for recovery of amount under Order xxxvII. (3) According to the petitioner's ...
inder Pal Singh Chadha Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)585; 65(1997)DLT120; 1996(39)DRJ661
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The challenge in this petition is to the constitutional validity of the decision of the respondent - Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ( for short-'Delhi Government') prohibiting draw of lotteries organized by Delhi Government. The Delhi Government with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor passed the order directing that Delhi Lotteries be closed down w.e.f. 3rd January, 1995. The impugned decision of the Delhi Government, it has been urged by the petitioners, is ultra virus the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act 1991 ( for short the Act). It has been claimed that the impugned action is without jurisdiction and void ab initio since neither the provisions of the Constitution nor of the Act vest any power with the Delhi Government or Lieutenant Governor to take the impugned decision. According to the petitioners the power to prohibit organising of lotteries in Delhi vests only...
Chand Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)727; 1997(40)DRJ695
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petition seeks to challenge a notification of de- limitation issued under Section 5(2)(b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter Dmc Act, for short) to the extent to which it relates to ward No.107 - Bazar Sita Ram and ward No.108 - Paharganj (W). (2) The petitioner is a voter registered in the voter list of Bazar Sitaram, ward No.107 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.(3) The election Commission of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the respondent No.2 exercising the delegated powers of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act issued a notice dated 8.10.93 (Annexure P-3) proposing the limits of the 134 wards of the Delhi Municipal Corporation for the Corporation elections. The extent of ward No.107 Bazar Sita Ram and contiguous ward No.108 (Paharganj) (W) were proposed under :- '107.BAZAR Sita Ram, All Blocks of Dmc charge No.15. Blocks 38 to 60 of Dmc Charge No.16 Blocks 60 to 74 of Dmc Charge No.23. 108.PAHARGANJ(W), Block 38 ...
Kedari Singh Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT903; (1997)115PLR51
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the First Appellate Court whereby the Court held that the appellant was merely a licensee. His license stood terminated on his retirement from the service of respondent. He had no vested interest in the property. The document Exhibit Public Witness Pw 3 /1 dated 18th October, 1955 is the allotment letter issued by the respondent. It does not create any tenancy in favor of the appellant. (2) Aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent for possession was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That agreement dated 18th October, 1955 Exhibit Public Witness PW. 3 /1 had been misconstrued by the Courts below. The respondent while allotting the quarter to the appellant clearly mentioned that it was creating a tenancy infavour of the appellant. Since document ExhibitPW3/1 has been misconstrued hence his appeal raises a v...
Rameshwar Dayal Sharma Vs. Jagpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT898
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) to the extent that Court below by presuming that initially two rooms were let out, out of which the petitioner is now in possession of only one room has fallen into serious error. Counsel has vehemently argued that if it is a consolidated rent for the entire premises, then the entire rent abates and no part of rent could be recovered by the landlord. This argument was raised in an earlier case entitled Mis. Ved Rattan & Brothers v. Janak Raj, reported as 1979 (1) Rcr 106 wherein the plea of the tenant, deemed to be a defaulter, was not accepted by the Court, but after considering the law on the subject, the Court upheld that even in the case were landlord took for cable possession of apart of the premises and the tenant stopped paying rent, the Controller could order tenant to pay proportionate rent even though he cannot eject t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »