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.
indo Metal Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT784TriDel
1. This Revision Petition, since received by transfer, pursuant to the provisions of Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, to be treated and disposed of as an appeal, raises question of classification of goods described as "copper coated submerged arc welding wires", cleared from the factory in coils.2. The proceedings emanated as a result of seizure of S419 kgs. of the above said product in 339 coils; the department being of the vie that they were classifiable under Item 50 of the Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the CET). Proceedings were thus initiated on the allegation that manufacturing activity in relation to ex cisable goods had been carried on without observance of the Central Excise formalities and without obtaining proper licence. The party's plea, however, was that the goods did not fall within the definition of "welding electrodes", and they were merely receiving welding wires from other parties for doing electroplating and recoiling ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT198TriDel
1. The question that falls for decision in this case is whether cushion seats for motor vehicles fell, during the period from 1-4-1976 to 31-3-1977, under item No. 16A (1) of the Central Excise Tariff which read as "Latex Foam Sponge" as tentatively held by the Govt. of India in their impugned show cause notice, or under item No. 34A of the Tariff which read as "Parts and accessories of motor vehicles, not otherwise specified", as urged by the respondents.2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents filed a classification list in which they described the subject goods as Latex Foam Sponge falling under item 16A(1). The classification declared by them was approved by the Department. Later on, the respondents filed a refund claim saying that the goods were more appropriately classifiable under item 34A. The Assistant Collector upheld the original classification under item 16A (1) and rejected their claim. The Appellate Collector decided the appeal in favour of the respondent. The Go...
Bengal Lamps Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT529TriDel
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer to this Tribunal, the said application is being treated as an appeal and being disposed of as such.2. The appellants imported a consignment of Antimony Oxide with specifications 'Fine powder below 100 mesh, Purity 99.5 per cent as Sb2O3, Blue Star grade "P"' under Bill of Entry No. D1677, dated 27-1-1975 and claimed its classification under Item 28 of the ICT, 1934. However, the lower authorities did not accept the classification declared by the appellants and classified the goods under Item 30 ibid and also subjected the same to countervailing duty under Item 14(1) (5) CET. It is against this classification of the goods that the appellants have come to us for relief. During the course of the arguments, Shri Sogani stated that the goods imported by them were of a technical grade and were intended to be used in the process of glass manufacture and not as a colouring agent. Shri Sogani referred ...
Union of India Vs. Bakhtawar Singh Bal Krishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT153
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by Anand J. in Suit No. 511-A of 1980, on an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The judgment is confined to issue of jurisdiction only which was the preliminary issue. (2) THE award in question was given by Brigadier Joginder Singh on 28th October, 1981, and the contract out of which the dispute arose was one for execution of Civil Works, i.e., modernisation and augmentation of the Ordnance Factory at Moradnagar. It is undisputed that the contract was executed at Bareilly and the work was to be done in Moradnagar, both in the State of Uttar Pradesh. No part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. (3) THE jurisdiction of the Delhi Court was invoked (a) on the ground that the Union of India was carrying on business at its principal seat at Delhi and (b) on the ground that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shri Ram Rattan Bhartia v. Food Corporation of India and another, : AIR197...
B.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT150; 1989(16)DRJ225; 1989RLR1
(1) Effective hearing to the objectors is a mandatory requirement. In the instant the report of the Lac is non speaking and the order of the Lt. Governor have been passed in branch of the mandatory requirement; of Section 6. There is non application of mind. The report of the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 5 was. received in Raj Niwas on 5-6-l985 and the order under Section 6 was passed by the Lt. Governor on the very day.namelyely, 14-6-l985. The appears to be some substance in the contention that it was humanly impossible to consider such large number of objections together with the report under Section 5A in one day. The Lt. Governor also failed to notice the infirmities in the reports under Section 5A filed by the L.A.Cs. The satisfaction expressed by the Lt. Governor in his order under Section 6 is not the real satisfaction but a mere mechanical exercise.The orders passed by the Lt. Governor in regard to the said eleven villages are, thereforee, not sustainable in law an...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv Vs. Daropdi Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Del)35; ILR1984Delhi663a; [1984]149ITR178(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) at the instance of the Department poses the following question of law for our opinion : 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and thereby concelling the penalty of Rs. 5,000 ?'(2) The facts mentioned in the statement of case lie in a very narrow compass and are these. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69 and the accounting period ended on March 31, 1968. The assessed is a lady deriving income from property, share income from the firm of M/s. Om Parkash Jitender Kumar and Company, dividends etc. In the return of income for the year under reference, the assessed did not disclose any capital gains in respect of her one-half portion in the Ghaziabad property sold for Rs. 15,000 during the relevant previou...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. B.L. Dhingra and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR167(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 has posed the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the construction of clause 20 of the agreements of sale dated March 9, 1968, and April 15, 1968, the Tribunal was justified in following the payment of Rs. 35,000 as a deduction for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2.The facts briefly are these. The assessed is a registered firm of three partners carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. B. L. Dhingra & Sons. The assessment year is 1969-70 and the relevant previous year followed by the assessed ended on October 10, 1968. The assessed entered into an agreement of sale dated March 8, 1968, for acquisition of the property of a cinema house known as Vivek Cinema for a consideration of Rs. 27 lakhs. Out of the consideration of Rs. 27 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 11,10,000 was paid by the assessed and rec...
S.K. Chatterjee Vs. Subrata Bids Was
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi217; 25(1984)DLT124; 1984RLR257
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner is the landlord. The respondent is the tenant. The premises in question are C-233 Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. They comprise two bed rooms and one drawing and dining room in the first floor. Monthly rent is Rs. 300.00 per month. The premises were let for residential purposes on 11.6.1968. The landlord brought eviction proceedings under section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein the Act) on 24.9.1970, on the grounds of subletting, default in payment of rent, misuse and bonafide requirement. By an order of 14.12.1970 the Rent Controller held that the claim for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-scc. (1) of scc. 14 was premature. The petition was dismissed on 4.3.1978 on the ground that the tenancy was not terminated by serving a valid notice. While doing so, the learned Controller also rejected that no subletting on parting with possession was proved within the meaning of clause (b). Similar...
Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Chander Kanta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ550; 1984(2)Crimes173; 1984(6)DRJ67; 1984RLR136
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The parties were married on 20-2-1980. Their marriage was dissolved by the Additional District Judge on 6-1-1982. The wife was granted under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) a monthly maintenance of Rs. 200.00 per month with effect from 21-9-1981. inspire of this order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the code) by his order dated 1-7-1982 granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month with effect from 20-11-1980. It was submitted before the learned Magistrate that he could not make the order of maintenance because a competent civil court has already adjudicated the matter and has granted maintenance to the wife. The learned Magistrate rejected this argument. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 17-11-1982 agreed with the submission of the husband that after the permanent alimony has been fixed by the civil court under the Act, the pr...
H.A.L. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1983
Reported in: (1985)LC302Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application against Order-in-Appeal No.S/49-1330/77-GS dated 27-6-1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, which has been transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal under Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. A consignment of Ejection Seats, Parachutes and Survival Packs was imported and assessment claimed under ICT Item No. 76 vide B/E No. 241 dated 20-6-1973. However, the assessment of ejection seats was made under Item 76 while parachutes were assessed under Item 53 and Survival Packs under Item 87. On a claim for refund on the grounds that the goods should be assessed under Notification No. 145/58, they were asked to produce a Duty Exemption Certificate and Release Note for the Survival Packs and since no reply was received, the Asstt. Collector rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The claim was reiterated before the Appellate Collector and a DEC and Release Note were produced in support. The Appellate Collec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »