Delhi Court October 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 1 of about 56 results (0.022 seconds)Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT477TriDel
1. These are five appeals arising out of the combined Order-in-Appeal Nos. 41 to 45/ALLD/83, dated 11-4-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, on five appeals filed to him against orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gorakhpur.Since all the appeals were from the same appellants and the issue involved in all the appeals was the same, and the submissions were also common, the Collector passed a common order in respect of all the five appeals. Before us also all the appeals were heard together and therefore the discussion which follows would cover all of them.2. The issue relates to the levy of a "cess", namsly a duty of excise, on jute manufactures, in terms of the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976 dated 18-2-1976, issued under Section 30 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), at the rates specified in Ministry of Industries and Civil Supplies (Department of Industrial Development) Order No. S.I. (141) E, dat...
Tag this Judgment!Assam Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT688TriDel
1. This is a Revision Application (hereinafter called "Appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. In this matter, the appellants applied for refund of Rs. 50,000/- on 27-2-1980. This claim was received in the Assistant Collector's office on 29-2-1980. The refund claim was in respect of the period 19-4-1979 to 1-8-1979 and the grounds advanced in support of the refund application were that the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978 and that the duty payable on Rs. 5,00,000/- at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 50,000/- was to be refunded.3. The Appellate Collector rejected the claim holding that the appellants' letter dated 26-9-1979 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gauhati, cannot be treated as an application for refund of duty and that in the circ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Singh Saluja Vs. Vanson Shoes
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT189
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner, S. Mohinder Singh Saluja is the owner/landlord of the property no. 6/6 W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. M/s Vanson Shoes, a registered partnership firm, to start with, was the tenant of the part of the ground floor of the said premises but in the year 1971, they became the tenant of the whole of the ground floor, including the mezzanine floor at a consolidated rent of Rs 435.00 per mensem Subsequently the rent was increased to Rs. 515.00 including the water charges. The rent has since been paid to the landlord till the tiling of the present complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) The case set up by the tenant in brief is that at the time of the creation of the tenancy, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent landlord will carry out the white wash and minor repairs of the tenancy premises. In spite of the repealed requests and reminders, the landlord failed to get the premises in good shape as per the terms of the rent note....
Tag this Judgment!Misri Lal Vs. Tola Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR125
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition u/s. 482 of the Cr. P.C. is directed against proceedings on a complaint based on allegations of fraud, forgery and use of forged documents as genuine and the order of the trial court framing charge against the petitioner, among others. (2) The petition has been filed in the following circumstances. Property No. 2986- 87, in Gali No. 39, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, at one time belonged to one Ladu Ram. By a deed of mortgage of 7.1.1948, which was duly registered (Ex. Public Witness 6/1), Ladu Ram, mortgaged the said property, without possession, in favor of one Lalu Ram. Ladu Ram died on 8.7.1973 and until then, the mortgage had neither been redeemed nor redemption was foreclosed. It was until then not subject-matter of any proceedings either. By a legal notice of 11.4.1974, heirs of Ladu Ram, namely, his wife his son Tota Ram and his daughters, sought redemption of the property and, inter alia, claimed delivery of possession of it contending that it was a m...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Vishwa Nath Arora and Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1985]151ITR751(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Department raises the following question. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the assessed discharged the onus that lay upon it to prove satisfactorily the source for the sum of Rs. 30,000 and in deleting the addition ?' 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts contained in the statement of this case. The Tribunal followed the decision of this court in the case of Rattan Lal v. ITO : [1975]98ITR681(Delhi) and held that the assessed discharged the onus that lay upon it, to prove the existence of creditors, their creditworthiness and the fact that they gave the money, and the Department was, by virtue of the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965, under which the voluntary disclosures were made, precluded from adding those very amounts as unexplained income of the assessed. The decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Pershad and ors. Vs. Ram Avtar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes67; 25(1984)DLT306; 1984(6)DRJ54; 1984RLR37
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out a complaint filed by Ram Avtar, respondent No. I, against his father, petitioner No. I, his brother petitioner No. 2, and a cousin, petitioner No. 3, on the allegations that the petitioners were party to a conspiracy to defraud the complainant to commit acts of misappropriation and in furtherance of the conspiracy, the petitioners committed offences of fraud, misappropriation, forgery and using forged documents in the Civil Court and certain authorities thereby committing offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 568 and 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code . The complaint, which is rather clumsily drawn, is an apparent sequel to disputes between Ram Avtar, on the one hand, and his father and brother, on the other, and has its genesis in the family partnership in the name and style of M, Silco, of which the complainant was a partner. The partnership apparently holds valuable premises,...
Tag this Judgment!Sheela Vs. Tungal Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR580
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This is an appeal by a divorced wife against the respondent who was married to her. The claim is for permanent alimony of Rs. 150.00. p.m. u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act). (2) These are the facts. The appellant Sheela was married to the respondent Tungal Singh on 17.6.70. In 1979 the wife brought a petition for divorce against the husband on the ground of desertion and cruelty. She was able to prove both. So the Adj granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties. (3) Sheela made a claim for permanent alimony. This was negatived by the learned judge on two grounds. Firstly, the judge held held that the income of Singh was only Rs. 328.00. p.m. and he had to maintain himself and the two children of the marriage. She felt that the salary amount was hardly sufficient for the maintenance of the father and his two sons and thereforee did not award anything to Sheela. Secondly the judge held that Sheela was quite young and granting of permane...
Tag this Judgment!international Packers and Movers Etc. Vs. K.L. Suri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT164
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated September 5, 1983 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the appellants' appeal in liming against the order dated August 19, 1983 made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 15(1) of the Act whereby the appellants were directed to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1700.00 per month with effect from September 1, 1978 up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit was made, after adjusting a sum of Rs. 28,600.00 , within one month of the order and to continue to deposit the future rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month at the same rate. (2) In April, 1981, K.L. Suri, respondent herein, filed an application for eviction of the appellants from the premises in dispute bearing Municipal No. 882, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, inter alia, on the allegations that...
Tag this Judgment!Aries Agro-vet Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT467TriDel
1. This appeal dated 6th October, 1982 has been filed by M/s. Aries Agro-Vet Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay against Order-in-Appeal No.A-130A/B1-163/82 (This appeal appears to bear no date although the appellants give it a date of 6th September, 1982). The order of the Appellate Collector arose from the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division KI of Bombay Central Excise Order No. V (68) 17-CL-23/79/5239 dt. 16-6-82.2. The appellant produced certain products which are used as animal feed supplements and have been given various names like Poultrymin, Cattle-min, Yolk-O-Gold, Boon-O-Milk. These products are required to be added in small quantities to animal feed to balance and supplement the normal diet of cattle, poultry, pigs and other animals. The Appellate Collector held that although the products are assessable under item 68 as claimed by the appellants, they should not be given exemption under notification No. 55/75-CE which they also claim. The Assistant Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Leela Purie Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)7ITD130(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed late by 3 days. The assessee filed an application for condoning the delay. Having perused the application and having heard both the sides, we are inclined to condone the delay.2. The assessee is an individual. She owned certain shares in All India Films Corporation Ltd. ('the Company'). The book value of the shares was Rs. 5 each. The company passed a special resolution reducing the share capital from Rs. 5 to Re. 1 per share. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi confirmed the reduction of the share capital by the order dated 19-4-1977 and 18-5-1977. Accordingly, there was refund of Rs. 4 per share in respect of 16,161 shares held by the assessee in the company out of its accumulated profits. The assessee received in all Rs. 82,780 from the company after the reduction of the share capital. This amount was treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee accepted the position. After the reduction of the sha...
Tag this Judgment!