Delhi Court February 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.
ivory Mart Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD56(Delhi)
1. The assessee in appeal is Ivory Mart, New Delhi, a registered firm.The year of assessment involved is 1977-78 for which the previous year ended 31-3-1977.2. Grounds 2, 3 and 4 reading as under were not pressed at the time of hearing of the appeal: 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have straightaway allowed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act in respect of entire expenditure as per trading and profit and loss account. 4. It is contended that the section charging penal interest is not at all attracted in the present case.As such and for the reasons stated by the Commissioner (Appeals), with which we agree, we uphold his order on the points involved in the above grounds of appeal.3. Admittedly, the assessee in the year under consideration was the owner of the property bearing No. X-25, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Vide agreement to sell dated 7-10-1976, the assessee agreed to sell the said property to Mr. Ved Prakash. It is also an admitted position that the possession of the ...
Lajpat Rai Sehgal and Others Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ888; 1983(1)Crimes737; 23(1983)DLT314; 2003(5)DRJ1
ORDER1. The point in issue in this petition, pertains pre-eminently to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 2(d) and (r) and 470(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In brief, the facts are, that petitioner No. 1. Lajpat Rai Sehgal, married Prem Kumari on 3rd March, 1980. This was in consequence of the engagment, which took place on 26th January, 1980. Prem Kumari's father, Mr. Vishan Dass Khanna, asserted that a list had been given to him on 25th January, 1980 by Lajpat Rai Sehgal and Nand Kishor Chopra, his brother-in-law, petitioner No. 2. The 'shogun' was given in accordance with the list. Thereafter, on 27th January, 1980, certain dowry demands were made. He gave what he possibly could at the marriage, but obviously Lajpat Rai Sehgal'a family was not satisfied. As such, they made a fresh demand on 4th March 1980, the day after the marriage, repeated demands were made through Nand Kishore Chopra and his wife Kanta Chopra, peti...
S.K. Dubey Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1983
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi60; 1983LabIC1118; 1983(2)SLJ547(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of quo warranto by Shri. S.K. Dubey, petitioner, against Shri Ram Kumar, respondent No. 2. There is a National Sugar Institute at Kanpur which is a department of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, The petitioner is working there as a senior technical officer and assistant professor. He was appointed in 1963 as a Lecturer. In June 1964 he was appointed as a senior technical officer in the grade of Rs. 350--900. In 1966 he was given a higher scale of Rs. 700--1250.2. So far so good. The trouble started in December 1966 when an advertisement was issued for the post of a Chief Engineer (Extension) [for short C.E. (Ext.)]. The Institute requested the Union Public Service Commission, respondent No. 3, (the Commission) to find a suitable candidate for the post of C.E. (Ext.) which carries a salary of Rs. 1100--1400. Now for this post of C.E. (Ext.) the ...
Shri Lakshmi Chand Vs. the Collector of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC375DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Petition transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal in terms of Section 82-K of the Gold Control Act.2. The undisputed facts are that, acting on information that the appellant was dealing in contraband gold, a search was conducted of his business and residential premises on 18.9.73 and gold, Indian currency and incriminating documents were recovered. As a result of adjudication, 7 biscuits of foreign gold weighing 816.599 gms. and 7 cut pieces of foreign gold weighing 211.800gms. were confiscated by the Deputy Collector under Section 111 (d); a penalty of Rs. 8000/ - was imposed on the Appellant under Section 112; and the currency amounting to Rs. 22,000/- was confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 An appeal was filed against this order but it was rejected. The Appellate Collector held that the recovery of the gold from his house was not denied by the Appellant and he had admitted supply of gold in cut pieces in his statement following ...
Multimetals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC377DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants stated at the outset that they had withdrawn their writ petition from the Supreme Court on 17-1-1983 and that the Tribunal was now free to decide the case on merits.3. The dispute in this case pertains to interpretation of exemption notification No. 213/63-Central Excises, as amended by notification No.29/67-C.E. To facilitate a proper understanding of the issues involved, we reproduce below this notification, together with its amendment :- Notification No. 213/63-C.E., as amended by notification No. 29/67-C.E. "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts pipes and tubes of copper alloys, falling under sub-item (3) of Item No. 26A of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (1 of 1944) in the manufacture of which duty paid copper or copper alloy in any crude form or manufactures thereof are used, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon, as is equivale...
Graphite India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC766DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Graphite India Limited, filed a revision1 petition before the Central Government (Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi) assailing orders of the Excise Authorities whereby a product manufactured by them and described as "Graphite Head Blocks" was classified, for the purpose of excise duty, under Tariff Entry No.67 of Central Excise Tariff, as 'Graphite Electrodes'. This revision petition stands transferred to the Tribunal as an appeal by virtue of provisions of Section 351 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and is being disposed of as such.2. The appeal first came up for hearing on 5.1.1983 when Shri R.N.Bajoria, Senior Advocate accompanied by Shri K.K. Ganguly, Advocate appeared for the Revenue.3. After the matter had been extensively argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant, an adjournment was necessitated because Shri Bajoria made an oral request to submit a certificate from the Steel Authority of India in support of the appel...
Ruby Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC430DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Central Government (hereinafter called Appeal) which, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal and is to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants, who are manufacturers of cotton fabrics, had filed before the Central Excise authorities a classification list, as required under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in respect of Sort No. 3289 manufactured by them describing the fabric as "Dyed, mercerised, printed (Brasso) polyester, cellulosic, cotton shirting, wash and wear, pre-shrunk finish". They had also declared the terene contents as 28% at the grey stage and 31.8% at the processed stage. The appellants sought classification of the fabric under Item No. 19-1(2) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (C.E.T.) which was allowed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bomba...
Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals Vs. Coventry Metals Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi153; 1983(4)DRJ362; 1983RLR280
D.R. Khanna, J.1. specifications moved under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act by the Union of India, Shri P.S. Kaicker Additional Legal Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi, who acted as sole arbitrator inter-se parties for determining the disputes and differences inter-se them under A/T No POM-1/20/ 098/17.5.78/PI/389/PAOD/096, dated 9.11.78, filed his award dated 29.8.1980 in Court. Notice of this filing was given to the parties. The respondent Coventry Metals Corporation Pvt. Ltd. then filed objections to the award.2. In the meanwhile, it appears that the respondent had as well moved the arbitrator under Section 13(d) of the Arbitration Act for giving a finding on the 5% balance price due to them, which the learned Arbitrator had missed to give. The award was then amended by the arbitrator on 21-11-1980 so as to allow 5% balance price to the respondent. No. objection has been filed from the side of the Union of India to this allo...
Hydraulics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)(12)ELT533TriDel
1. This case relates to demand of Central Excise duty from the appellants in respect of pistons, a component of shock absorbers, manufactured by them. The case was heard on 8-2-1983. Shri K. Sarvanai, on behalf of the appellants, showed a sample each of the shock absorber, piston and piston rod assembly. He brought to introduce an affidavit of the appellant's Works Manager regarding the function which the piston performed but this being fresh evidence was not allowed to be introduced by the Bench.2. Shri Sarvanai then argued that all parts of motor vehicles falling under Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff were exempt from duty under Notification No. 99/71-CE, except the parts specifically named in the said notification and excluded from the purview of the exemption. Entry No. 6 added in the said exclusion list on 17-3-72 by amending Notification No. 95/72-CE read as under : - Shri Sarvanai maintained that the manner of listing pistons as sub-entry of Entry No. 6 along with the othe...
Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC347DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application transferred to the Tribunal for disposal under the provisions of Section 131B (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts of the case are that at about 23-30 hrs. on 9-11-72, the Cenlral Excise staff at Ludhiana intercepted two horse driven carts loaded with 9 boras each containing imported old and used woollen serviceable garments. In follow-up action, 5 bales and 16 boras containing such garments were also recovered from the godown belonging to M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills. In the subsequent adjudicating proceedings, the Deputy Collector held that the circumstances and manner of removal showed the goods were intended for sale in violation of Customs law. No import of second hand clothing has been permitted for several years and the garments seized could not have been validly imported. No proof could also be produced by the persons from whom the goods were recovered to establish valid import. He accordingly confiscated the goods under Section 1ll (d) of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »