Delhi Court November 1983 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.H.E.L. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT93TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignment of "Rectilinear Conductive Potentiometers and L.V.D.P. Displacement Transducer" valued at Rs. 11,156/- for use as component parts requiring in the assembly of Water Turbine under heading 84.07, CTA, 1975. The Customs authorities assessed the goods on merits under item 85.18/27(1) CTA, 1975, at the rate of 100%-20%+ 896. The appellants claimed for re-assessment of the goods under Customs Exemption Notification No. 35/79 dated 15-2-1979 and their claim was rejected as unsubstantiated in the absence of the end-use affidavit and a DGTD Certificate along with their appeal to the Appellate Collector the Appellants submitted the end-use certificate as well as. Duty Exemption Certificate signed by their General Manager, as required under the aforesaid notification. The relevant catalogue of the components and assembly drawings for the Turbine were also submitted. The Collector (Appeals), however, rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated since he could no...
Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT368TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as revision applications before the Central Government and have come as transferred proceedings, in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act 1962, to this Tribunal for disposal as they were appeals filed before it.2. The issue involved in these three appeals is common and this common order disposes of all the appeals.3. The issue is whether the chemical -GLYOXAL 40% -imported by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as FALRDEAL) was eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs with reference to Central Excise notification No. 55/75 dated 1-3-1975 as a "drug intermediate" falling under item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET.) 4 The lower authorities held that the chemical was a raw material for the manufacture of a drug intermediate, namely, 2-Methyl Imidazole. It was a versatile chemical having multifarious uses. Since it was not exclusively or even predominantly used in the manufacture of drugs, it was not e...
Machine Tools (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT363TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as a revision application to the Government of India, is whether 'Funditor Marking Machine' imported by the appellants by B.E. No. 1-559 dated 20-9-1977 should be assessed under heading 84.45/48, as claimed by the appellants or under heading 84.59(1) as done by the Customs authorities.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta rejected the appellants' claim for re-assessment and refund for absence of proper particulars. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta by his order dated 29-5-1979 held that the heading 84.45/48 of C.T.A. was not applicable to the goods, hence the present appeal.3. At the hearing of the appeal, Sh. B.N. Sharma, Consultant for the appellants and Sh. V.M.K. Nair, S.D.R. for the Department were heard.4. The appellants have filed catalogue of the machine. In the grounds of revision, it is urged that the machine is primarily intended for deep marking tough materials under heavy pressure. Part, ser...
Shree Hubli Chemical Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT365TriDel
1. This appeal HCW/Col-SS/Demand/82 dated 10-1-83 has been filed by Shree Hubli Chemical Works against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras A. No. 199/82(B)/ C. No. V/14BB/6/82 dated 4-12-82 which arose from an order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hubli C. No. V/14BB/2/16/82 B. 5/28654 dated 30-7-82.By this order the Assistant Collector ordered recovery of Rs. 4780.33 from the factory on certain clearances or goods which the department held were colloidal sodium silicate. At first the Assistant Collector said that the notification 154/70 under which the factory asked for concessional assessment would not cover colloidal sodium silicate. He passed an order in March '81 demanding duty of Rs. 26,495.22. This order was set aside by the Appellate Collector who remanded the case to the Assistant Collector to re-examine it after taking into consideration notifications 71/78-C E. and 80/80-C.E. In the subsequent order of 30-7-82, the Assistant Collector ...
Central Cottage Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD731(Delhi)
1. The appellant, Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, which came into existence on 1-4-1976 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. and which took over the business of Central Cottage Industries Association as a running concern, incurred an expenditure of over Rs. 18,83,000 as per particulars below in the accounting year ending on 31-3-1977 relevant to its very first assessment for the year 1977-78 on renovation, improvement, alteration, extension, decoration and furnishing of its business premises situate at 124, Janpath, New Delhi.1. Cost of new furniture 4,65,0001} } 4,69,0004. Expenditure on paints and 3,28,356distemper 1,52,956 }and on renovation of old furniture11. Cost of contingencies, }material and design fees 1,50,000 }13. Cost of miscellaneous }work like fixing of racks, }display of alcoves and }expenditure on false ceilings }(described as expenditure 1,08,930 }on ex...
income-tax Officer Vs. Desh Rakshak Ausdhalaya (P). Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD531(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a private limited company. It is carrying on business of manufacture of ayurvedic and herbal medicines. It is also exporting its products on commission basis. In this appeal there are only two grounds.2. The first ground relates to disallowance of travelling expenses of a sum of Rs. 3,456. The ITO applied Rule 6D(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, on the other hand, following a decision of the Chandigarh Bench in IT Appeal No. 807 (Asr.) of 1979 in the case of ITO v. Nagesh Hosiery Mills, held that Rule 6D(2) will not apply in the case of persons not in the category of employees. This is the first grievance of the revenue. The allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in connection with travelling by an employee or any other person within India outside the headquarters of such employee or other person for the purposes of the business or profession of the assessee shall not exceed the aggregate of the amounts comp...
Modern Automobiles (i) Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: 1984RLR220; [1984]56STC85(Delhi)
Wad, J. 1. The petitioners are the successful tenderers for the purchase of surplus stores of the Director General, Supplies and Disposal, Government of India. The Director General as well as the petitioners are registered dealers under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of Office Order No. 120 dated 28th December, 1981, issued by the Director General, Supplies and Disposal, directing that the purchasers will not be entitled to exemption and that the sales tax declaration forms would not be accepted. The office order also directed the purchasers to pay the sales tax separately. Through the said office order, clause 10 of the special condition of contract No. 117 was amended. The amendment was incorporated in the letter of acceptance of the tender which forms part of the contract between the parties. Incorporation of the said terms in the contract is also challenged in the present writ petitions. 2. We may not the relevant prov...
Daljit Singh Madan Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT305; 1984RLR470
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Approximately 9 out of 10 appeals which come to this court are concerned with disputes about the correct construction of Acts of Parliament. These three appeals are concerned with the correct construction of Section 14(1)(k) read with sub-section (1 1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the Act). In particular it is concerned with the exact parameter of sub-section (II). (2) The Facts: The appellant landlord has sought ejectment of his three tenants on the ground that the premises were let for residence and that contrary to the conditions of the lease of the land granted to him by the President of India the premises are being used for a commercial purpose. Three separate petitions were filed against the three tenants in 1973. The Additional Controller by order dated 21-1-1978 passed orders of eviction against all three of them under section 14(1)(k) of the Act. He called upon them to stop'the commercial use of the premises within a period of 2 months, if th...
Anand Synthochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT477TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as revision applications before the Central Government and have come as transferred proceedings, in terms of Section 131-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.2. The issue involved being the same in both the appeals, they are disposed of by this common order.3. The issue is whether 3, 5-Xylenol imported by appellant was entitled to exemption from the levy of additional duty of customs in terms of Notification No. 55/75-Central Excises dated 1-3-1975, as covered by the entry : "All drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates, not elsewhere specified." 4. The appeals were heard on 18-11-1983. Shri Rajadhyaksha, the Counsel for the appellants, brought to our notice that two other appeals - 529/80-C and 187/77-C of the appellants involving the same issue stood decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants vide orders dated 18-3-1983. He submitted that, following ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Ram Charat Ram P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: [1987]163ITR861(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. 1. These two sets of references raise common questions of law for the opinion of this court : Questions in ITRs. Nos. 268 to 270 of 1975 : '1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of items 6 and 16 of the List in Part IV of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1964, and of items 7 and 25 of the List in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965, the assessed was entitled to rebate on its share of profits derived from Electrical Industries Corporation, for the. assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 respectively 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of items 7 and 24 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessed was entitled to a deduction under section 80E on its share of. profits derived from Electrical Industries Corporation, for the assessment year 1966-67 ?' 3. Question in Surtax References Nos. 115 and 116 of 1974 : 'Whether, on the fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »