Delhi Court December 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 4 of about 53 results (0.019 seconds)Indian Record Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT324TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is whether imposition of penalty of Rs. 3.000/- on the appellants and demand of duty from the appellants on 'Demo' records removed from the factory is justified and if so for what period. The appellants are manufacturers of Gramophone records falling under T.I. 37(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff. Appellants contend that during the manufacture of gramophone records, defective records called 'Demo' records are also produced, that this is inevitable, as it is inherent in the manufacturing process. The defective records so produced are not fit for sale or marketing. Between the period Nov., 1978 to Nov., 1980, the appellants removed from their factory to their headoffice 13,576 pieces of 'Demo' gramophone records. No statutory records like gate passes or R.G. 1.were maintained in respect of these demo records though a number of other private documents in respect of these were maintained and produced by the appellants before the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Nav Bharat Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT332TriDel
1. The present proceedings arise out of the notice of review bearing No. 380/103/80-Cus. II dated 6-2-81 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers vested in them under Section 131 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as it stood at the material time, calling upon the Respondents to show cause why the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-360/79R dated 23-8-79 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, (on the appeal preferred by the Respondent against the order-in-original bearing No. S/6-C-3279/78R dated 7/9-8-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay) should not be set aside. The Assistant Collector, by his above cited order, rejected the Respondents' claim for refund of the additional duty of customs levied and collected on a consignment of Methyl Cellulose imported by them, as barred by the limitation under Section 27 (1) of the Act. The Appellate Collector, by his order of 23-8-79, held that the levy of addition...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Ram Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)7ITD789(Delhi)
1. This appeal raises a somewhat interesting question relating to capital gains. There was a partnership firm known as Veerji Di Hatti.It consisted of two partners, father and son each having 50 per cent share. This was going on for several years. On 31-3-1978, however, the firm was dissolved. The son, Sardari Lal, continued the business as sole proprietor. The assessee, i.e., the father before us had a balance of Rs. 29,392 in his capital account at the time of retirement. The assessee in payment of his capital was given some gold ornaments and jewellery. Between 18-4-1978 to 7-11-1978, the assessee sold the gold ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 27,763 to his son and the total consideration came to Rs. 45,789. The assessee declared capital gains of Rs. 18,178. The assessee further claimed that the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains.2. The ITO first of all invoked the provisions of Section 52(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He fixed the market pric...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. H.G. Gupta and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]149ITR253(Delhi)
Chadha, J.1. This reference was in compliance with the directions given by this court under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and poses the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude the portion of a sum of Rs. 5,977 on account of stamp duty, etc., to arrive at the annual letting value of the property ?' 2. The assessed is a registered firm and owns a property at Najafgarh. The case relates to assessment year 1964-65, the relevant previous year of which ended on August 31, 1963. The said property was leased out to M/s. Voltas Ltd. under an agreement dated December 14, 1961, for a period of five years on a monthly rent of 6,100. Under an earlier agreement dated May 1, 1960, M/S. Voltas Ltd. advanced a sum of Rs. 2,19,600 to the assessed to enable the assessed to remodel the building to suit the requirem...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. R.C. Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT245; 1984LabIC1935
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 28, 1980 of the learned Single Judge, B. N. Kirpal J. whereby the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition of respondent R.C.Jain, quashed the decision of the appellant Union of India contained in the impugned letter dated November 10, 1976 and directed the Union of India, within three months of the receipt of his judgment, to calculate and pay pensionary and other benefits which may be due to R.C. Jain, except those benefits which have already been allowed to him, on the basis that he was in service as a seaman with effect from August 22, 1959. R. C. Jain was also allowed costs of the writ petition. (2) R. C. Jain was initially enrolled as Artificer Apprentice on August 22, 1959 in the Indian Navy at Indian Naval Ship Shivaji Lonavela, Poona. He worked as a trainee in that capacity uptil 23rd August, 1963. From the date of completion of his aforesaid training he was advanced to Elec...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Tube Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT338TriDel
1. This is a revision filed before the Government of India, on transfer is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants on the strength of the Government of India decision in revision 682/7.5 submitted their refund claim of Rs. 1,69,508.31 being the excise duty paid by them in excess. According to their contentions their product was correctly described as 'reversible mill ends' and that their challans' referred to the identical product. But unfortunately the products were described as 'loose irregulars' in the gate passes. The Asstt. Collector basing his findings on the entries in the gate passes refused to accept the appellant's contention that those items were also 'reversible mill ends'. Mr. Raman, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contended that the gate pass numbers have been noted in the respective challans and hence there was no suppression of materials by their assessee. He also urged that challats produced by the appellants should also be taken into consideration for pur...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. American Refrigerator Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT428TriDel
1. Before the arguments on the merits of appeal commenced, Shri Khaitan raised a preliminary objection that the appeal filed by the appellant on 9-5-83 was not a valid appeal as it had been presented without compliance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of section 35E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act). Shri Khaitan argued that on 9-5-83 the Central Board of Excise & Customs (hereinafter called Board) had not passed an order as required under subsection (J) of section 35E and therefore there was no compliance with subsection (4) of this Section. Such an appeal was therefore incompetent.2. Shri Khader for the appellant brought it to our notice that the appellant had with respect to the same order and matter, filed another appeal on 3-11-1983. This appeal has been given the same number by the Registry. Shri Khadar explained that the second appeal was filed on 3-11-1983 by way of abundant caution Shri Khader invited our attention to a letter d...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. T.P. Khaitan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas28(Delhi); 25(1984)DLT120; ILR1984Delhi688
D.R. Khanna, J. 1. Technically speaking, this petition moved under section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, by one Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., has become infructuous inasmuch as the relief sought for cannot any longer be granted. That relief claimed was that the Company Law Board should be restrained from proceeding with appeals Nos. 1 to 12 of 1982 filed before it under section 111 of the Companies Act with regard to the transfer of certain shares. The Company Law Board has already disposed of those appeals and allowed them on July 13, 1983. Thereby the appellants before the Board, who where the transferees of certain shares, were made entitled to be registered as shareholders on the basic of those transfers. The opposition by the company to there transfer was negatived. The company then filed a writ petition against that decision of the Company Law Board, assailing the same on various grounds, but without success. The write was dismissed on November 22, 1983. 2. There is thus no furt...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Dutt Salwan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes470; 25(1984)DLT266; 1984(6)DRJ184; 1984RLR90
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The Petitioner Shiv Dutt Salwan is the Chairman of the Salwan Education Trust. The trust runs the Salwan Public School. The management of the said Trust decided to institute disciplinary school resulting in bad blood between the management and the delinquent employees. The employees lodged an Fir No. 598 on 31-12-1980 under Sections 147/ 148/149/307/506 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and few others. That case being exclusively triable by the court of section of session has already been committed on 10-5-1983.(2) Another Fir No. 17/81 Ps Rajinder Nagar was lodged on 8-1-1981, this time against the petitioner alone that he threatened the wife of one of the witnesses in the earlier case that in case the statements given by the witnesses are not changed they would face dire consequences. This case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. On 16-4-1983 and application was made by the petitioner under Section 323 Criminal Procedure Code . for committal of the...
Tag this Judgment!Meva Ram Arya Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi123; 25(1984)DLT201
Sachar, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the election as members of Delhi Development Authority of three representatives of the Metropolitan Council from amongst themselves held on 21.7.1983.(2) Election to the Metropolitan Council were held in the month of February, 1983. At present out of 56 elected members 34 belong to the political party, known as Congress (1) and 22 belong to the opposition ; 19 of political party known as Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.) ; 2 of Lok Dal and I of Janata. The petitioner is elected member from the Patel Nagar Constituency and belongs to B.J.P.(3) Parliament has passed an Act called Delhi Administration Act, 1966 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1966). The Act provides for the administration of the Union Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith.(4) Section 3 of the Act of 1966 provides for a constitution of Metropolitan Council for Delhi. Total number of seats in the Metropolitan Co...
Tag this Judgment!