Delhi Court September 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.
B. Banerjee Vs. Romesh Mahajan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT930; 1996(39)DRJ87; 1996RLR499
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The petition for eviction was filed by Mr.Romesh Mahajan against the present petitioner from the premises bearing No.8-A/99, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). The ground taken in the petition was that the premises in question was required bonafide by the landlord owner for his use as he was to vacate the tenanted premises in his occupation. He wanted to occupy his own house.(2) On notice being served, the tenant (petitioner herein) filed an application seeking leave to defend, inter alia, on the ground that the Mr.Romesh Mahajan was neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises. Property vested with Delhi Land & Finance Limited or Bombay Life Insurance Company Limited. The father of the respondent herein was simply a lessee and as per the terms of the lease the property belonged to the Lesser or vendor and not 'to the lessee. Moreover, original l...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Dhanpat Rai, Darshan Rai and Yash Pal.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Del)56
BY THE COURT :At the instance of Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing that exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, 1957 was available to the assessed in respect of the property that belongs to the firm in which he was a partner ?'2. This Court in CIT vs . A. K. Tandon & Ors. : [1992]198ITR26(Delhi) , has held that a firm has no legal existence and as such it cannot hold any property. It is the partners who own the partnership property or assets. thereforee, it is only fair that they alone should have the benefit of the exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) when their individual assessments are taken up which will include their respective shares in the net wealth of the partnership firm.3. The ratio in the case of A. K. Tandon (supra) also covers the commercial properties as well. In respect of commercial properties reference may also be mad...
Smt. Shashi Mangla Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)362
ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J.M. :This appeal by the assessed for the asst. yr. 1988-89 is directed against order of Dy. CIT(A), Rohtak, refusing to rectify his earlier order dt. 21st January, 1991, under s. 154 of the IT Act.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessment of the assessed under s. 143(3) was made on 29th March, 1990, on net income of Rs. 52,948. The said assessment was challenged in appeal before learned Dy. CIT(A), Rohtak, who disposed of the same vide order dt. 21st January, 1991. On three grounds relevant in these proceedings, the learned Dy. CIT(A) passed the following order :(a) On 4th ground of appeal raised before him relating to disallowance of Rs. 4,000 out of total expenditure of Rs. 22,408 under the head 'traveling and conveyance expenses', the learned Dy. CIT(A) agreed with AO and dismissed the appeal with the following observations :4.4 I have gone through the details of traveling expenses. These expenses include the hotel expenses in respect of the as...
Falcon Tyres Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT450TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal the appellants have agitated two issues namely the classification of their product and denial of benefit of Notification No. 71/68, dated 1-4-1968.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tyres and tubes. With the introduction of new Central Excise Tariff in 1986 the appellants submitted a revised classification list effective from 2-4-1986 claiming the classification of their product described as calendered fabrics in process (unhardened) under sub-heading 4005.00 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 71/68, dated 1-4-1968. The department alleged that calendered fabrics are not covered by sub-heading 4005.00 but are appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 5905.00 inasmuch as the calendered fabrics satisfy the condition 3(a)(i) of Chapter Note under Chapter 59. The department also alleged that since the product was not classifiable under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff therefore exemption containe...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Walchandnagar Indus. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT666TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 118/75-CE., dated 30-4-19871. Under this Notification No. 118/75-C.E. goods classifiable under Item No. 68 when used for captive consumption enjoyed the full exemption from Central Excise duty. This exemption was, however, not available to complete machinery which was used for the production or processing of the goods. The respondents M/s. Walchandnagar Indus. Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of machinery parts which were used by them as replacement of certain components of complete machinery installed and working. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, held that they were eligible for the said exemption. On appeal by the Revenue, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The Revenue had come in appeal on the ground that mill rollers and shells were cleared to sugar division for replacement of parts...
Parshuram Iron and Steel Rolling Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT535TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Parasuram Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 30th September, 1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of the rolls for captive use exemption. The appellants were bringing forged rolls and were subjecting them to machining and finishing and were using such rolls in their lathe machines which were a part of their rolling mill for manufacturing iron and steel products like flats, etc. The forged rolls were received from outside and were classifiable under Item No. 25(8) of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Heading No. 72.08 under the new Tariff. On machining and finishing the finished rolls before their use in the rolling mill were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Heading No. 84.55 of the new Tariff.For the period from 1-8-1982 to 28-2-1986 the appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 118/...
Collector of Customs Vs. Enfield India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC382Tri(Delhi)
1. This Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.C/3/528/86, dated 3-10-1986 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. The respondents imported "con rod forgings for motor cycles". The goods were assessed to duty under Heading 84.06 CTA, 1975 and under Item 27(b) CET for countervailing duty. The respondents subsequently filed the claim for refund on the ground that the goods were liable to be assessed to duty under CTA, 76.08/16.3. Arguing for the appellants, the learned DR submits that the goods were connecting rod forgings for motor cycles. The goods had already been in the shape of finished articles and the fact that certain operations like drilling, grindings, facing, fixing a bush etc. were subsequently carried out would not take them out of the category of finished articles in terms of Interpretative Rule 2(a). In this connection he cites in support the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., and Final Order No. C/28-35/94-B2 which relied on ...
Perfect Electric Concern (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT440TriDel
1. M/s. Perfect Electric Concern Pvt. Ltd. had sold a part of their production of electric horn to M/s. Telco and part of the production to their distributor M/s. Perfect Engg. Stores Sales (Pessa). The price charged from M/s. Telco was higher than the price charged from M/s.Pessa. It was alleged that M/s. Pessa were their favoured buyer and the price charged from M/s. Telco should be the normal price. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, who adjudicated the matter held that the appellants had admitted that the goods were supplied to M/s. Pessa at lower prices to avoid laying off of the labour. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that M/s. Pessa were the favoured buyers of the appellants' company.2. When the matter was fixed for hearing on 9-9-1996, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. They had requested for adjournment. On going through the issue involved and the evidence on record we are of the view that the matter could be disposed of even i...
Peak Electronic Systems Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT516TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Peak Electronic Systems, Bangalore, the matter relates to the classification of the product "Electronic Igniters for Sodium Vapour Lamps". The Collector had classified these goods under Heading No. 85.04 of the new Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector had classified the goods under Heading No. 85.39 of the Tariff.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 9-9-1996. The notice for today's hearing had been sent to the appellants on 13-8-1996 with a copy to the counsel on record. There is no response from the appellants. There is no request for adjournment. As the matter is very old, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, who is present for the respondents/Revenue.3. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, referred to the product in question and submitted that the Electronic Ignitor was covered by the description of Electrical Static Convertor under Heading No. 85.04 of the Tariff. He referred to the product literatur...
Synthetic and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT191TriDel
1. This reference application arises from Final Order No. A/820-21 /96/NB dated 15-3-1996 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has disposed of two appeals by common order and hence the appellants have filed a single reference application against the common order. The appellants are manufacturers of "Synthetic Rubber". They claimed Modvat credit in respect of two imported inputs namely "Hegatreat and Hegafilm". The department had noticed that admittedly these two items were not used as input in the manufacture of synthetic rubber but they were used as a corrosion inhibitor in all the process plant and in various condensors for maintaining the temperature of polymixisation reaction. Therefore, the department held that these two items cannot be considered as inputs within the scope of the said term as per explanation to Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal after careful consideration of the submissions and after examining the material on record and noticing the uses to which th...