Delhi Court March 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 6 of about 76 results (0.020 seconds)Mehta and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ171; 1983RLR467
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Metha & Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on business as contractors and builders at Jullundur City. It entered into a contract with the Union of India for construction of office blocks in connection with the provision of a diesel shed at Ludhiana, on 3rd December, 1977, after its tender dated 4th August 1977 for the said work was accepted by the respondent. The construction work was to start on 22nd August, 1977, and was to be completed on 21st February 1979, but for certain reasons it could not be completed in time Ultimately it was completed on 31st March, 1980. The respondent had agreed to the extension of time for completion of the work. For the due performance of the contract the petitioner initially deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter, it is alleged that a further amount of Rs. 1,20,020 odd was deducted from the running bills of the petitioner towards the security. The agreement entered into between the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Box of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1551DTri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta dated 20-3-1978. Originally the appellant had filed a statutory revision petition before the Government of India against the order of the Appellate Collector but after transfer to this tribunal it has been registered as an appeal.2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the Asstt. Collector issued a show cause Notice on 31-1-77 calling upon the appellants to pay duty short-levied for the weight of plastic caps attached to collapsible tubes cleared by the appellants during March, 1975 to February, 1976. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand for duty by his order dated 22-3-77. The Appellant felt aggrieved from the said order and preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector. In this appeal, the order of the Asstt. Collector was confirmed. The present appeal is against that order of the Appellate Collector.3. We have heard arguments of both the sides. The Learned Counsel for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjit Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes3220; 23(1983)DLT338; 1983(4)DRJ393; ILR1983Delhi867
G.R. Luthra, J.1. On January 14, 1980 both the appellants-Paramjit Singh and Surinder Singh, who are real brothers, were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for an offence of murder of one Hardev Singh punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The allegations of the prosecution briefly are as follows. On 7th September, 1978, Hardev Singh (deceased; and his father Darshan Singh (PW 11) saw a Natak near Hanuman Temple in village Khiala. After the Natak was over, they were returning to their house. One Anil met them in the way and he also accompanied them. Near 'T' blook, Vishnu Gaiden at about 11.15 p.m. (night of 7th September, 1978) they were stopped by both the appellants. The appellants demanded from Hardev Singh and Anil that the latter should return to the former they money which the latter had won in gambling by fraud during the day. Hardev Singh and Anil denied having earned any money on account of gamblin...
Tag this Judgment!Union Carbide of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC552DTri(Delhi)
2. Shri Raghavan Iyer raised a preliminary objection saying that the Assistant Collector had not passed speaking orders in this case. The appellants, however, stated that they had no grievance on this score and that they wanted the matter to be disposed of by this Bench on merits and not remanded to the Assistant Collector, 3. Exemption notification No. 198/76-CE granted a partial duty concession to the appellants which was in the nature of an incentive for their excess production. The short point to be decided in the present appeal is whether from the appellants' cum-duty prices the duty actually paid by them should be deducted to arrive at the assessable value of their products or the duty which they would have paid but for the incentive concession should be deducted. The question is not whether the appellants should retain the entire incentive with them or pass it on to their customers. That is a matter to be decided entirely by themselves. The question is one only of determining t...
Tag this Judgment!Alliance Scientific and Chemical Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC554DTri(Delhi)
1. The goods involved in this case are non-transparent crucibles and basins of fused silica imported on 20-6-1973. They were assessed by the Department under the residuary item No. 87 of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff. In addition, countervailing duty as applicable to chinaware and porcelainware under Item 23B(4) of the Central Excise Tariff was also charged. The appellants seek assessment of basic customs duty under Item 77(2) ICT on the ground that the goods were for exclusive use in laboratories. Regarding the countervailing duty, their plea is that if at all it is leviable, it should be charged under Item 23A(2) CET-laboratory glassware.2. The case was heard on 8-3-1983. Both sides reiterated their arguments. The appellants, in order to substantiate their stand, showed samples of the subject goods and the catalogue of M/s. Thermal Syndicate Limited ; England which lists the subject goods under the heading "Vitreosil Laboratory Ware". They added that the subject crucibles and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dai-ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(12)ELT564TriDel
1. These are two revision applications to the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (as then applicable) which, in accordance with Section 131B(2) ibid, are to be proceeded with as if they were appeals filed before the Tribunal. (These are 'hereinafter' referred to for convenience as "the appeals")- After notice had been duly issued, the appeals were taken up for hearing on 4-3-1983 and the hearing completed on 8-3-1983.2. The basic facts in these cases are that the appellants imported certain goods which were meant for use in the manufacture of their products. These goods were charged to the basic Customs duty with reference to Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and also to the additional duty under Section 3(1) ibid. These appeals are against the levy of the additional duty (referred to for convenience as countervailing duty) on the subject goods.3. In the revision applications and at the hearing before us, two main grounds have been urged. These are ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Intercontinental Hotels
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)4ITD334(Delhi)
1. The respondent assessee is a nonresident American company. It is operating in Latin America having a chain of hotels. It was also contemplating to operate hotels in various other countries. It is well-known in hotel circles as 'IHC'. It entered into what is known as membership and service agreements with two hotels in India. They are: East India Hotels Ltd. having Oberoi Intercontinental in Delhi and Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. running Taj Intercontinental at Bombay. There were also other agreements with the two Indian companies in respect of construction, design, etc., with which we are not concerned in the present appeals. Since the membership and service agreements entered into by the assessee with the aforesaid two companies is almost on identical terms, we will consider in these appeals, the agreement entered into by the assessee with East India Hotels Ltd. on 6-8-1962.This agreement, inter alia, provides that the East India Hotels Ltd., which is in brief called East India, would b...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT367
M.L. Jain, J. 1. The case of the accused is that Dayanand Rana and his friend Sardool Singh used to write love letters to the daughter of their neighbour Lajpatrai Bansal and throw them in the staircase. One such letter fell into the hands of Padam Singh who gave it to the girl. She complained to her father who along with Ramgopal Rana father of Dayanand Rana went to the house of Padam Singh and reprimanded him. It is further their case that Dayanand and Sardool Singh threatened to deal with him. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that Padam Singh used to tease the said girl to which Dayanand and his friend objected and this annoyed the accused persons. Whatever be the truth but it is certain that the parties were at loggerheads over this matter. 2. On 17-2-1980 Padam Singh accused appellant lodged a report with the Police Station Ashok Vihar at about 12.45 p.m. that Rana and one Sikh whose name he did not know gave him a beating. At the same time, the police received in...
Tag this Judgment!Ceat Tyres of (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC919DTri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, dated 9th April, 1979. Originally it was filed as a Revision Application by the Central Government and on transfer it has been registered as an appeal.2. The Appellants manufactured industrial tyres which were originally assessed under item 16 of the Central Excise Tariff. Later, however, on 5th March, 1974, they filed a fresh classification list asking for re-classification which was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. On 15-4-1976, the Appellants filed refund claims for the period 14-6-1971 to 5th March, 1974. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise allowed the refund of the excise duty for the period of one year 14-4-1973 to 15-4-1974, but the balance amount was not allowed as it was held to be barred by limitation. The learned Counsel has further stated that they received a cheque for Rs. 29,388.17 paise dated 20lh May, 1975 by a forwarding letter of the same dat...
Tag this Judgment!Chemtech Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC498DTri(Delhi)
2. In this case, the appellants seek refund of countervailing duty paid by them on a consignment of zinc ash imported by them on 23-4-80 on the grounds that- (1) Zinc ash is not "goods" but only a process waste that arises incidentally in the course of manufacture of other zinc products (1977 E.L.T. J-199 S.C. and 1980 E.L.T. 146-Bom), (2) by virtue of exemption notification Nos. 134/65-C.E., 168/69-C.E. and 104/73-C.E. which, among themselves, cover the entire zinc generating sector in India, no one pays Central excise duty on zinc ash in India and, therefore, there is no question of charging any "countervailing" duty on the imported zinc ash, (3) if at all, "ashes" in item 26(1) of the Central Excise Tariff whi-g relates to unwrought zinc, would cover zinc ash arising only at unwrought stage, that is, the smelter stage and zinc ash arising during rolling etc. process would be free of duty, and (4) because of the Bombay Custom House Public Notice dated 3-11-81 classifying zinc ash un...
Tag this Judgment!