Delhi Court December 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 3 of about 53 results (0.022 seconds)Neelam Chaturvedi Vs. Mukul Kumar Chaturvedi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes472; 25(1984)DLT177; 1984(6)DRJ221; 1984RLR84
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed the order of the trial court by which the trial court refused to summon Respondents 1 and 2 in a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the order of the trial Court.(2) The petition, which ex facie exposes a crude and clumsy attempt at character assassination of an educated young lady to defeat the claim for restitution of conjugal rights, has been made in circumstances which, to say the least show not only an utter disregard of any scruple on the part of an Advocate but also an unawareness on the part of the Courts below to their duty to give protection to a lady from an act of calumny. Respondent No. 2 is an Advocate of U.P. Respondent No. I is his,son and happens to be an Executive in a Nationalised Bank. Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi, sister of the petitioner who apparently come of a respectable family, was married to the son of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Super Tyres (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC857Tri(Delhi)
1. The question that falls for decision in this case is whether scrap rubber arising in the appellants' factory in the course of manufacture of tyres and tubes is liable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The appellants claimed rubber scrap as free of duty in their classification list effective from 1-3-1978. The lower authorities have not accepted their claim and have held that scrap rubber is chargeable to duty under Item 68. The appellants stated before us that scrap rubber was an automatic, involuntary and unavoidable arising in the course of manufacture of tyres and tubes. They sold a part of the rubber scrap to kabaris and whatever portion was left unsaleable was consumed within their factory by burning. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the DCM case to say that taxable event for levy of excise duty was manufacture of goods and since they did not intend to manufacture rubber scrap and on the contrary it arose automatically as a process waste, no man...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pennar Ceramic and General
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT427TriDel
1. By its show-cause notice F.No. 199/33-35/73-CX.V(A) dated the 26th November, 1973, issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the Central Government proposed to revise four Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 1558/72-AU(V)23-B/2/16/72, 1626/72-A-23-B/2/18/72 and 1627/72(V-23B/2/18/72, all dated 12.12.1972 and 136/72(D.B.Dis.V/123-B/2/1/72-AU dated 5.12.72 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, allowing four appeals of the respondents. Since the matter was pending on 11.10.1982, when the provisions relating to the Tribunal came into force, the show-cause notice was, under Section 35P(2), Central Excises and Salt Act, transferred to the Tribunal, for being dealt with as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. Since the show-cause notice related to four orders-in-appeal, four appeals with the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad as appellant and Messrs. Pennar Ceramic and General Industries as respondents, and bearing Nos. ED(SB)(T)13/74D &...
Tag this Judgment!Walker Anjaria and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC757Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, 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 he Tribunal.2. The issue in this appeal is whether the "scoured wool" exported by the appellants against 10 Shipping Bills between 13.5.1974 and 1.6.1974 was liable to export duty under Item 12 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (referred to for convenience as "Export Tariff Schedule"). It appears that these 10 shipments were provisionally "assessed" under section 18 of the Customs Act and were allowed to be exported after taking a deposit of 2.5% of the amount of duty calculated at 25% ad valorem. Subsequently, after a chemical test had been conducted, the Customs authorities finalised the assessments, holding that the goods covered by the 10 consignments were liable to duty as raw wool, and demanded the differential duty amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Crescent Capacitors Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]149ITR285(Delhi)
Goel, J.1. By this reference the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') has referred for the opinion of this court the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessed, M/s Crescent Capacitors, New Delhi, for the assessment year 1970-71 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the disallowance of the assessed's claim for deduction of Rs. 20,000 paid to Shri A. C. Gupta as not qualified for deduction as per the provisions of ss. 35(1) and 43(4) or 37(1) of the I.T. Act ?' 2. The assessed was a firm manufacturing capacitors for use of radios and transistors. The previous year of the assessed relevant to assessment year 1970-71 ended on July 31, 1969. The firm consisted of three partners, all of whom were the sons of one A. C. Gupta, who was the founder of the firm. The firm needed a component called 'etched foils' for manufacture of capacitors by it. T...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Export Corporation Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR434
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) We have first to deal with a number of applications. In C.M. 551/83, there is a prayer for condensation of delay in stamping the judgment under appeal with the court fee of Rs. 2.75. The appeal was filed on 4.7.83 which was the last day of limitation with an unstamped order and without a decree and also without the necessary court-fee payable on the appeal. As the failure to stamp the copy of the judgment appears to be an oversight, we condone the delay, and this decides C.M. 551/83. (2) C.M. 553/83 prays for time to file the court fee on the appeal. It states that the court fee was not available by the closing time of the court on 4.7.83. but we find that it was bought on 4.7.83. Possibly, the appellant could not get the court fee to the High Court in time and had to file the same when the appeal was re-filed. We allow this application and condone the delay. (3) C.M. 554/83 prays for exemption to file the decree-sheet. This point is inter-connected with the question ...
Tag this Judgment!V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT95TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the orders of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, in the Order-in-original No. 1/82 dated 29-3-1982, the appellants have preferred a revision application to the Central Government which is transferred to the Tribunal and treated as appeal.M/s. V.S.T. Tillers Tractors Ltd., situated at Whitefield Road, Bangalore, held a licence for manufacture of Power Tillers and parts.They filed classification lists on 21-1-75 indicating that (i) CT 85 Tillers with AD 8 Engine; (ii) AD 8 Engine and (iii) Job works were assessable to duty under Tariff Entry No. 68 and that the spare parts and attachments for tillers were not excisable as they were bought out and warehoused for trading purposes only. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore-I, visited the factory during January, 1980, and noticed that the licencee was manufacturing parts for power tillers for captive consumption availing exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 118/75 dated 30...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Del)274; [1984]149ITR19(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. In compliance with the order of this court in I.T.R. No. 18/72, dated September 4, 1975, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for short called ('the Tribunal') drew up a statement of case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction to pass the order dated March 11, 1968 (March 8, 1968) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the Income-tax Officer had reopened the assessment of the assessed for the assessment year 1962-63 under section 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. The statement of case relates to the assessment year 1962-63, the accounting period ending on March 31, 1962. The assessed is an individual being sole proprietary of M/s. Sharda Trading Co. The assessed field a return of income showing the same at Rs. 15,365 and claimed a loss of Rs. 52,208 as having been carried forward from the assessment year 1961-62. The return was filed before the ITO, Special...
Tag this Judgment!Lucas Indian Service Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT415TriDel
1. This matter was originally an appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs which has been transferred to this Tribunal to be dealt with as if it were an appeal before us.2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 3-5-82 of the Addl.Collector of Central Excise wherein the Addl. Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and demanded duty amounting to Rs. 62,899.21 on the Electrical Laminations cleared during the period from 1-4-80 to 11-3-81. He also appropriated the cash security of Rs. 2.300/- furnished by the appellants.3. The facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture, among other things, ignition coils falling under Tariff Item 68. Electrical stampings and laminations form a component in the manufacture of ignition coils. The appellants obtain these from M/s. Madras Electrical Manufacturing Co. Admittedly the appellants supply cold rolled steel strips with diagrams and specifications to ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraiya Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT327TriDel
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called 'appeal') filed before the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal) under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against order-in-original No. V-Adj (36) 15-1-76 dated 25-1-1978 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as are apparent on record are that M/s Saraiya Engineering Co., 159-3, Caval Cross 6, Bombay-2 started manufacturing Mechanical Lighters since 1970 under the brand name 'Gasofire'. They did not obtain a Central Excise licence and cleared the goods without payment of duty. On receipt of information that M/s Saraiya Engineering Co. were manufacturing Mechanical Lighters without Central Excise licence and clearing the same without payment of duty, the officers of the Central Excise, Bombay Division No. II visited the premises of the appellant on 3-10-1975 and found 70 fully manufactured Mechanical lighters lying in the said premises...
Tag this Judgment!