Delhi Court May 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 4 of about 89 results (0.022 seconds)Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC928DTri(Delhi)
1. This appeal was filed by M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur directed against an order passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta dated 30-7-1979 whereby he rejected the appeal of the appellant-company on the point of classification, of their products which they described as "(1) harrow discs and (2) coal-cutting picks, falling under Tariff Entry 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff, (hereinafter referred te as C.E.T.).2. It appears that the aforesaid two products are being manufactured in a factory owned by the appellant company, under the name and style of "Agrico", where agricultural implements are produced by forging process, out of duty paid steel materials. It is contended that no duty is leviable on such forged products of iron and steel if made out of duty paid semi-finished steel material.3. According to the appellant, they have been manufacturing number of products at the said factory under AL-4 Licence which they held since 9-12-1968, but wh...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kant Deyasi Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT197
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a case of a Havildar. He was enrolled as a combatant clerk (Store) in the Army Services Corps of the defense Department under the Chief of the Army staff on 15th February, 1963. He worked diligently in that post. He was promoted on l-6-1968 to the rank of Havildar. From the rank of Havildar the next promotion is to the post of Naib-Subedar. For promotion to the post of Naib-Subedar, the petitioner was considered in April 1978. He was not promoted. He was 'superseded' on the ground that he 'does not fulfill criteria for promotion in regard to grading in character rolls'. This is all that he was told by an order dated 4th August, 1978. He made several representations. against this decision of the army authorities. His case is that he fulfills the criteria for promotion and that the authorities are not applying to him the correct criteria. (2) When the petitioner entered the army service in 1964, the rule regarding promotion was the following : '2.(ii)...
Tag this Judgment!Sawhney Brothers Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984CriLJ412; 1983(2)Crimes751; 24(1983)DLT112; 1983(5)DRJ250; 1983RLR653
H.L. Anand, J. (1) These petitions u/8. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a common family partnership and its members, are directed against two separate complaints filed by the Delhi Development Authority against the petitioners under Section 14 read with Section 29(2} of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 in respect of the two different premises, being A 4 and A-14, Nizamuddin West, on allegation that the aforesaid prairies can be used only for residential purpose and are being used by the petitioners for a commercial, purpose, contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan 'and the Zonal Development Plan.(2) The petitioners are admittedly carrying on business in both the premises. Both, the premises are also admittedly of a residential nature and situated in a predominantly residential locality. Prior to the institution of the present complaints, the petitioners were prosecuted by the Authority for the aforesaid offence in relation to one of the aforesaid premises, namely, A-14, N...
Tag this Judgment!international Conveyors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1093DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s International Conveyors Limited, a Public Limited Company, in short mentioned as the Company, filed a Revision Application (R.A.) before the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Department of Revenue on 10th of April 1981 against the Order No. V-2(68)/688/79/8620 dated 23rd of October 1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The related Order of Adjudication was of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Aurangabad dated 21st/24th of March 1979. The said R.A. came to be transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred as the Act, as an Appeal, and is being accordingly disposed of as such. "P.V.C. Fire Resistant Anti-Static Solid Woven Coal Conveyor Belting/P.V.C. Food Conveyor Belting." 3. While submitting the AL-4, the Company claimed that its products fell under Tariff Item 68 of the C.E.T.4. On 24th October 1978, the Company was required to explain the manufacturing process and raw mater...
Tag this Judgment!Nav Bharat Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC806DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek the benefit of exemption notification No.147/58-Cus. in respect of Hygain Antenna System for Telecommunication Equipment imported by them. Their claim was rejected by the Appellate Collector on the ground that the appellants had failed to establish that the goods were specially designed as components of wireless transmission apparatus in terms of the notification. Along with their revision application (now the subject appeal before us), the appellants sent the relevant catalogue which states, inter alia, that the unique design characteristics of the subject antenna provide reliable high power capabilities for communications over short, medium and long range distance point to point circuits. There is thus no doubt that the goods are duly covered by the notification. The Department's representative, however, raised an objection during the hearing that the original claim of the appellants before the Assistant Collector was under notification No. 1/72-Cus. and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Joginder Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi512; [1985]151ITR93(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. It is well-settled that for the purpose of assessment to income-tax, the law to be applied is that law that is in force in the assessment year; in other words, the I.T. Act, as it stands amended on the first day of April of a financial year, will apply to the assessment for that year. This principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 221, has since been reiterated by Supreme Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala : [1966]60ITR262(SC) and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. : [1961]42ITR589(SC) and other decisions. The two references presently under consideration raise a similar question regarding the law applicable in regard to the levy of a penalty for concealment under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. So far as the penalty provisions are concerned, there have been material changes in the statute in several respects and these have brought to the forefront a good deal of controversy in regard t...
Tag this Judgment!The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Joginder Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Del)285
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) It is well settled that for the purposes of assessment to income tax the law to be applied is the law that is in force in the assessment year; in other words, the Income-tax Act as it stands amended on the first day of April of a financial year will apply to the assessment for that year. This principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Maharajah of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1945 13 Itr 221 has since been reiterated by the supreme Court in Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. V. State of Kerala : [1966]60ITR262(SC) and Cit v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. : [1961]42ITR589(SC) and.other decisions. The two references presently under consideration raise a similar question regarding the law applicable in regard to the levy of a penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (2) So far as the penalty provisions are concerned, there have been material changes in the statute in several respects and these have brought to the forefr...
Tag this Judgment!Gujraj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(2)Crimes746; 1983(5)DRJ266
G.R. Luthra, J. 1. On May 28, 1980, an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (Shri P.K Jain), convicted the appellant in respect of commission of an offence of murder of Nathan Singh punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Nathan Singh deceased had 5 sons, one of whom is Bhim Singh (PW1). The deceased and his 5 sons were living together in house No. D-583, Jor Bagh, Tri Nagar, Delhi. Appellant was residing in a house No. 1849, Jor Bagh, Tri Nagar, Delhi, which was just opposite with one street intervening to the house of Nathan Singh, deceased. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows. The appellant was addicted to charas and drinking liquor. Nathan Singh deceased used to admonish the appellant and would ask the latter to desist from his bad habit of drinking etc. The appellant started bearing grudge against Nathan Singh. 3. On December 8, 1978 at about 9 p.m. Nathan Singh was sleeping on a cot in his room. The light of the room was o...
Tag this Judgment!S. Harnam Singh Suri Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi145; [1984]145ITR159(Delhi)
M.L. Jain, J. (1) In the year 1964, the petitioner Harnam Singh Sun purchased a plot of land No. l/30, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, on which he later on constructed a house. On 17-1-1972, he filed an income-tax return for the year 1971-72. In the accompanying statement, he stated that the said house was self- occupied and was sold on 15-1-1971. 'The capital gain out of the sale was Rs. 1,31,884 which was utilised for purchase of a residential flat in Asha Deep on 18-1-1971. So in column 5 of the return under the caption 'capital gains' he entered the word 'none'. In the verification, the petitioner solemnly declared that to the best of his knowledge and belief the information given in the return and the annexures and the statement accompanying it is correct and complete and the amount of total income and other particulars shown are truly stated. In the course of assessment proceedings, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 18-2-1972 staling inter alias that prior to its sale, he was living in t...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Prakash Gulati Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1589
R.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner Ved Prakash Gulati by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleges violation of his fundamental rights of freedom and privacy by the action of respondent No. 2 in bringing his name on the surveillance register and further by opening his history sheet. The petitioner alleges that for various reasons, the details of which are given in the petition, the respondents had adopted against him a vindictive and hostile attitude.2. The respondents in reply have denied that the petitioner has been brought on the surveillance register. However, it has not been disputed that an order for maintaining the history sheet of the petitioner has been made. The respondents in Annexure R-1 to the reply have given the details of the criminal cases in which the petitioner is alleged to be involved. The details of the cases are as follows ;-----------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. FIR Dated Under Police PositionNo. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!