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.
Abdul Aziz Chaba Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1307; 1984RLR298
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Abdul Aziz Mohammad alias Aziz Chuba claiming to be resident of Dubai has filed this petition through his brother, Ahmed Hazi Mohd, a resident of of Bombay, seeking setting aside of the order of detention passed against the former by the Govt of India on 11.7.78 u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, ('the Act') (2) The petitioner's case is that he is a citizen of India and is carrying on business in the name of M/s. Aziz & Co., at Dubai. He has been residing there for the last over 15 years. It is averred that through a press release which was given publicity on the television in India it came to be known that an order of detention under the Act had been passed against the petitioner. Thereupon he filed a writ petition in this High Court seeking quashing of the same. As he had not been served with the detention order he was unable to annex a copy of the same with the petition. On issuance of a show cau...
Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1983
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT448TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as revision applications before the Central Government and have come a- transferred proceedings, in terms of Section 1315(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, to this Tribunal for disposal as if 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 FAIRDEAL) 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 no...
Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2114DTri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 437/82 dated 14-4-1982, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The Collector had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector denying the benefit of the Transfer of Residence concession to a colour TV set and a Video recorder brought by the appellant.2. From the records it is seen that the Assistant Collector had observed that the abovementioned articles had not been used by the appellant. He was asked to operate them but failed to do so. According to the Assistant Collector, he had stated that these articles were lying with his in-laws from whom he got them after a decree (annulling his marriage). There was no observation that the articles had not been used at all.3. The Collector (Appeals) observed that there was an admission by the appellant that the items had been lying with his in-laws. The Collector (Appeals) held that the items could not have been in the possession and use of the appellant or his family abroa...
Mineral and Metals Trading Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT148TriDel
1. Originally preferred as a revision application to the Central Government, the matter has been transferred to us as an appeal and is being disposed of as such. The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-4-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. For a proper appreciation of the issues involved in the present appeal, it would be useful to briefly narrate the facts of the case. A contract was entered into between The Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India (MMTC), hereinafter called the Buyer, and M/s.Empresa Minera Del Peru (M1NERO-PERU), hereinafter called the Seller, and this contract is dated 6-3-1972. As per the terms of the contract, the seller was to supply to MMTC Electrolytic Copper Wire Bars corresponding to ASTM B5/43 specifications. The price clause is also relevant and is reproduced below : - The purchase price for each shipment is therefore to be understood as the monthly average of the Peruvian Producers Price for ...
Shalimar Wires and Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT495TriDel
1. This is an appeal to the Tribunal u/s 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 against order-in-appeal No. 241-242/West Bengal/82 dated 6-11-82 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, and a cross appeal has also been filed by the CCE., West Bengal before the Tribunal.2. The Appellants manufacture Fourdrinier Wire Cloth, Dandy Rolls and Dandy Accessories falling under Item 68 of the C.E.T. amongst other products from Copper Alloy Wires. Copper Alloy Wires as also Strips are also manufactured by the Appellants. The dispute in the present case is regarding the classification of three types of scrap, namely, (i) that arising out of Fourdrinier Wire Cloth, Dandy Rolls and Dandy Accessories etc., (ii) that arising out of Copper Alloy wires and (iii) that arising out of Copper Alloy strips. The Appellants had claimed classification under T.I. No. 68 in respect of the first, 26A (ia), for the second and 26A(ib) for the third. The Asstt. Collector...
Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1983
Reported in: [1985]156ITR202(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. These two references, one at the instance of the assessed, and the other, at the instance of the Department, under section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raise the following questions : At the instance of the assessed : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs debited by the assessed to 'Deferred Revenue Expenditure Technical Know-how Payment Account' was expenditure of a capital nature 2. If answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessed-company was not entitled to depreciation in respect of the said amount of Rs. 4 lakhs ?' 2. At the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the deletion of Rs. 1,49,098 representing the profit on devaluation of pound sterling from the taxable incom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›