Delhi Court February 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.
international Airports Authority of India Vs. Akhil Sibal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)317; 1996(37)DRJ1
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) These four Letters Patent Appeals arise out of same land acquisition proceedings and can be disposed of together. In all these appeals, the appellant is the International Airport Authority of India (hereinafter called the Airport Authority). The appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions Filed in 1987 and quashing the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) as being vocative of Section 17(4) of the Act. The learned Single Judge,however, observed that it would be open to the appropriate Government to proceed with the acquisition after issuing a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act 'in accordance with law'. (2) After the writ petitions were so disposed of by the Judgment dated 20.5.1994, the Government issued a fresh declaration under Section 6 on 19.5.1995 and the said notification has been separately challenged in various writ petitions in C.W....
Vivek Gupta and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Chand Bararia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT177
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 7th March, 1986, of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition for eviction of the petitioners under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rant Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was dismissed. The eviction was sought in respect of the demised premises forming part of Property No. 30/20, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. (2) The brief facts are that the property was previously owned by Smt. Parsani Devi who was grand mother of the petitioners. She bequeathed the same vide Will dated 16th December, 1971. The said Smt. Parsani Devi died on 23rd March, 1982 and thereafter the petitioners became owners of the property. It was further alleged that the respondent had even attorney to the petitioners and he had started paying rent to them. The demised premises were let out to the respondent for the purpose of residence and now the same are required bonafide by the petitioners for their residence and residence of th...
Heminder Kumari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Del)280
ORDERPer B. S. Saluja, J. M.-The assessed is in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dated 17-8-1994 mainly on the ground that the agricultural land sold by the assessee, which is situated in village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, is not liable to long term capital gains, as the same does not fall within the definition of 'capital assets' given in section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The case was heard on 20-12-1994, 19-1-1995 and 4-4-1995 and lengthy submissions were made by the learned council for the assessed Shri R. Ganeshan and the learned DR, Shri D. D. Goel. At the conclusion of the hearing on 4-4-1995, both the parties also made written submissions.3. The thrust of the arguments and written submissions by the learned counsel is that the land in question, which is situated in village Dera Mandi, is agricultural land. A reference has been made to the provisions of section 2(14)(iii), which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience :-'(14) ...
Concord Control Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT329TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 29-4-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants, herein, are availing of modvat credit on several inputs. They have initially filed a declaration under Rule 57G for the purpose of availing of modvat credit on the inputs for which they declared certain materials as inputs for the purpose of being used in the maufacture of various final products giving also tariff headings of these inputs. On scrutiny of the R.T. 12 returns, it was found by the Assistant Collector that the appelants, herein, had availed of modvat credit on inputs which had not figured in their declaration under Rule 57G.Proceedings were initiated for the recovery of the amount of irregularly availed modvat credit and the jurisdictioal Assistant Collector by his order dated 24-11-1993 demanded duty of Rs. 30,176.73 under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500.00 on the items, herein, under Rule ...
J.K. Synthetics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT203TriDel
1. The issue in appeal No. E/166/93 is the eligibility to Modvat credit of trichloro ethylene. The issue in the other three appeals is the eligibility to Modvat credit on silicon spray. Both items are used by the respondent by M/s. J.K. Synthetics. These appeals are being disposed of by a common order.2. Shri Sanjay Grover, advocate for the appellant says that trichloro ethylene is used to clean the meshes by the filter through which the molten material captolactum in the case of manufacture of nylon yarn or DMT in the case of polyster yarn is filtered. The filteration is necessary to remove solid particles which would clog the whole jets in the spinnerette. Meshes themselves get clogged by this material and trichloro ethylene is used to clean meshes of such material.3. He says that silicon spray is vised for spraying the inner portion of the jets so that when the molten material is excluded through these jets, its passage is eased for use of this lubricant and the jets are not clogge...
Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT115TriDel
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order dated 27-4-1994 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. The issue for determination in this appeal is the eligibility or otherwise of the appellants to the benefit of the money credit scheme in terms of Notification No. 231/87, dated 1-10-1987 issued under Rule 57K of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for "Solvent-75" and Paraldehyde manufactured by the appellants - according to the Department the benefit is not available, as these two final products are not specified as such in the notification while according to the appellants the two products are only wastes or by-products and not final products or alternately, once aceteldehyde is manufactured and entitled to the benefit of the scheme, its further polymerisation into paraldehyde cannot disentitle it from the above benefit.2. Heard Shri Dev Nath, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri R.A. Sheikh, the learned Departmental Representative. As pointed out by bo...
Winter Misra Diamond Tools Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT670TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 26-5-1994.2. The Learned Counsel stated that the appellants were manufacturers of "Diamond Impregnated Segments" which were welded on alloy steel plates which in turn were used as saws in the sawing machines.3. The appellants were using the segments for manufacturing the complete saw in their factory.4. On 1-3-1988 they had filed classification list claiming assessment under Heading 8202.00 and the benefit of Notification No. 108/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 and this was approved by the Assistant Collector by his Order No. 118/88.5. Again on 13-6-1988, they had filed another classification list claiming the benefit but in spite of earlier approval a show cause notice was issued on the ground that the goods were assessable under Heading 8209.00. This notice was in respect of March, 1988 and did not cover clearance of April, 1988 which were allowed after giving the benefit of the exemption Notification in acc...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Goetz (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT481TriDel
1. The appellant uses chemicals specified in the appeal for the manufacture of sand moulds which are in turn used for casting, piston ring and pins in the course of manufacture in its factory. Credit taken on the duty paid on these goods was used by it towards payment of duty on the piston rings and pins manufactured by it. The department proposed denial of credit on the ground that the finished product in the manufacture of which these chemicals are used is sand moulds which are exempted from duty. The Assistant Collector dropped the demand. The Collector (Appeals) having confirmed this order, the department has come up in appeal.2. The ground in the appeal, which the departmental representative adopts, is that the chemicals are used in manufacture of sand moulds which are apparatus or appliances. They therefore fall in the excluded category of inputs. Therefore, credit is not admissible.3. The three Member Bench of this Tribunal has held in its order in Shri Ramakrishna Steel Ltd. v...
Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT603TriDel
1. In this appeal, the short issue for determination is whether the Piston rings fitting equipment imported by the appellants is classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.59(1) as held by the department or under Heading 84.49 as claimed by the importer.2. Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that the appellants had imported Piston Rings Fitting equipment. She submitted that the Tariff entry 84.49 reads : "Tools for working in the hand, pneumatic or with self-contained non-electric motor".Interpreting this entry, the learned Counsel submitted that this entry covers all tools which are operated manually and since the item imported by them was to be operated manually, therefore, it will be appropriately classifiable under Tariff entry 84.49. The learned Counsel submitted that Tariff entry 84.59(1) was a residuary entry and since a specific Heading 84.49 was available for classifying the imported goods, therefore, there was no question of going to resid...
National Textile Corporation Vs. Subhkarandas Chiranjilal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT278
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) National Textile Corporation (Delhi Punjab &Rajasthan;) Ltd., Unit - Ajudhia Textile Mills has filed this suit against the three defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,47,106.03. Very briefly stated the facts are these. The second defendant through the first defendant M/s. Subhkarandas Chiranjilal placed the indents with the plaintiff which are Ex. P.9 and P.10 for the purchase of yarn. Pursuant to the indents Ex. P.9 and P.IO plaintiff dispatched the goods to the second defendant to a place called Maunath Bhanjan in the District of Azamgarh through the third defendant Delhi Kanpur Gondia Transport Co. Regd., the carrier. (2) The plaintiff prepared G/Rs, the bills and the hundies and were sent through the Bank. Ex. P.29 to P.33 are the hundies and Ex. D.11 to D.15 are the G/Rs First defendant, the commission agent, was informed about second defendant not having honoured the hundies. The first defendant requested the plaintiff to redraw the hundies. As per the directions...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »