Delhi Court May 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 9 of about 89 results (0.020 seconds)Canara Workshop Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)CENCUS986D
1. The question which fell for determination, before the Assistant Collector originally in these proceedings, was as to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 67/73-CE, dated 1-3-1973 in relation to a product which the party described as "cast steel billets manufactured from old iron and steel melting scrap with the aid of electric furnace which was subsequently rolled into bars and cleared thereafter by transfer to the Spring Division of the appellants for manufacture of automobile leaf springs". The Assistant Collector, Mangalore, by his order dated 24-2-1982, confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 1,80,162.50 under Rule 10 read with section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the view that they had wrongfully availed of the exemption contemplated by aforesaid Notification No. 67/73 and that they had, in fact, been found to have been manufacturing billets and bars with the admixture of "fresh unused steel melting scrap" on which no duty had been paid, and thus ...
Tag this Judgment!Meco (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)5ITD375(Delhi)
1. This appeal relates to levy of additional tax under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a private limited company. There is no dispute that the assessee has not declared the required percentage of dividend. The ITO worked out the distributable income at Rs. 2,48,222. This figure was disputed before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the assessee and according to the assessee the correct figure amounted to Rs. 2,11,530.In a way the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this figure with a rider that it is to be verified. The assessee declared dividend of Rs. 75,000. Obviously, therefore, the amount declared is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 104 but the assessee pleaded that in view of certain facts, which we will deal with presently, the dividends were not declared beyond the sum of Rs. 75,000. This plea of the assessee based on a number of grounds was not accepted by the revenue authorities and, therefore, this appeal is filed before the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Concerned Workmen of Sahai Industries Vs. B.D. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ165Del
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) Civil Writ No. 940/73 and Civil Writ No. 620/74 arc two cross writ petitions filed on behalf of the Management and the Workmen challenging an award dated 10th May, 1973 passed by Shri B.D. Gupta, Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, on a reference made to it, that the refusal of duties to the workmen concerned with effect from 21st May, 1969 could not be justified by the Management on any ground whatsoever and directing that the workmen concerned be taken back on duty by the Management with only 25% wages as compensation for the period commencing from 21-5-1969 till the date of the publication of the award. (2) The management has challenged the award in so far award directs the workmen to be taken back on duty with only 25% wages as compensation whereas the workmen concerned have challenged the award claiming that the award should not have been restricted to the 25% wages as compensation. (3) The facts necessary for the present controversy are that two ref...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntla Chopra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ210
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The petitioner, Smt. Shakuntla Chopra, is working as a Stenographer Grade Iii in the Principal Accounts Office of the Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi. She has been working there for the last six years or so. In 1982, the Assistant Controller of Accounts by letter dated 5th October, 1982 required her to appear at a special examination which was going to be held on 12th December, 1982 for the purpose of regularising her in service. She declined to appear at the examination. Her case is that she is not covered by the scheme which was devised in 1982 by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms.(2) A large number of lower division clerks were working in various offices of the Government but they had not been drafted in the Central Secretariat Clerical Services. So a request was made by these people who were ad hoc appointees for their regularisation in the service in view of the fact that they had rendered a number of years service and had become o...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1440DTri(Delhi)
1. The case came up for hearing on 4,5.1983, The appellants' letter dated 30th March, 1983 was placed before us in which the appellants have stated that they did not desire to attend the hearing in person and that the Bench may decide the matter on the basis of the evidence already furnished by them, including a copy of the Govt. of India's Order-in-Revision No. 2965 of 1978 dated 19.1.79 passed in their favour in an identical matter.2. The question under consideration in the case before us is whether Hastelloy 'B' imported by the appellants which contained 15.078 per cent. nickel, 6 per cent, iron and rest other non-ferrous metals etc.should be assessed to customs duty under item 70(1) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff as done by the Department or at lower rate of duty under item 65(b) ICT as urged by the appellants. The lower authorities have rejected the appellants claim on the short point that item 65(b) related to non-ferrous nickel alloys and since the subject goods contain...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1512DTri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by Orient Paper Mills, Brajrajnagar, Orissa against the Order No. 5/OR of 1980 dated 31-3-80 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The dispute is regarding a demand for 3,93,852.82 made by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, O.P. Mills, Brajrajnagar by letter C. No.PR-4/OPM/78/ 1421 dated 9-9-78 in respect of wrapper paper said to have been cleared between 16-3-76 so 30-11-76 by O.P. Mills. This demand was endorsed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Sambalpur who, by his order (original) No. 17/3/ 79/1 dated 4-5-79, ordered O.P. Mills to pay forthwith the demanded amount of Rs. 3,93,852.82. The dispute arose because from 16-3-76, duty on wrapper paper became leviable ad valorem. The Central Excise contend that the Mills should pay duty on its wrapper paper as wrapper paper before it is taken for use to wrap other papers in. The Mills reject this contention saying that they pay duty on the wrapper paper when it is...
Tag this Judgment!The New Delhi Holy Family Hospital Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi84; 1983(5)DRJ152; 1983RLR588
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This petition raises a question of general importance for all charitable organisations. The question is whether lands and buildings exclusively occupied and used by a society or a body for charitable purpose can be subjected to tax or they can claim relief from municipal taxation. (2) These are the facts. The New Delhi Holy Family Hospital Society is a charitable Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Its objects are 'to perform works of charity by caring for the sick and disabled without distinction of caste, religion or race.' It can establish hospital for the care of the sick in pursuance of these objects. The Society runs a hospital known as Holy Family Hospital at Okhia. This hospital has indoor as well as outdoor patients departments. It also imparts instructions to nurses, medical technicians, pharmacists, etc. For this purpose it has erected a huge complex of buildings. (3) The important point to notice about the Society is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Hawalbagh Panchayat Udyog Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)5ITD440(Delhi)
1. The asscssec in appeal is Hawalbagh Panchayat Udyog, Almora, assessed in the status of an 'Association of Persons' (AOP). The year of the assessment involved is 1978-79 for which the previous year ended 31-3-1978.2. In the course of its assessment for the year under consideration, the stand of the assessee was that its income was exempt under Section 10 (20 A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), inasmuch as the assessec-udyog was an authority constituted by or under the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 ('the 1947 Act') and its income being for the purposes of planning and development of gaon sabhas' who constituted the membership of the assessee-udyog. This stand of the assessee has been rejected both by the ITO and the AAC on the ground that neither the assessee is an authority constituted in India by or under the authority of any law nor was its income earmarked for the purposes of planning, development or improvement of the villages.3. In the appeal before the Tribunal the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Lal Radhey Mohan Vs. the Punjab State Co-operation Supply and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi402; 24(1983)DLT36; 1983(5)DRJ223
(1) DELHI High Court Act, S. 10 An appeal barred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act cannot be maintained under Section 10 of the High Court Act. Arbitration Act, S. 39-Section 10 of the High Court Act docs not repeal Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. An appeal barred under Section 39 cannot be maintained under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act....
Tag this Judgment!