Delhi Court June 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.
Orissa Construction Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1053DTri(Delhi)
1. In this revision under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as it stood at the relevant time), hereinafter referred to as the Act, transferred to the Tribunal and heard by us as if it were an appeal pursuant to Section 35 of the Act, it would appear that- (a) the Appellant entered into a composite contract with the State of Orissa for fabrication, supply and erection of radial gates for which a lump-sum payment was to be made in terms of the contract ; the State of Orissa was to supply the Appellant, bars, plates, slabs etc. and radial gates were to be manufactured and erected at the site ; the contract, however, did not quantify the consideration separately for fabrication, supply and erection ; (b) the Appellant had failed to obtain a licence under Sec. 6 of the Act read with Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), notwithstanding that, admittedly, they were fabricating the aforesaid gates without the aid of power employ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Ogesh Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD492(Delhi)
1. This appeal is by the revenue. The assessee to the appeal is Ogesh Industries, Aligarh, a registered firm. The year of the assessment involved is 1975-76.2. For the year the assessee had returned a total income of Rs. 9,064 but the ITO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 54,970 by making the additions totalling Rs. 32,000 on account of cash credits of Rs. 24,000 standing in the name of Shri Atma Ram and Rs. 8,000 in the name of Bhavnesh Kumar on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove the nature and source of those cash credits as also on account of addition of Rs. 10,183 to the gross profit returned. Prior to the completion of the assessment, the ITO had issued notice to the assessee as to why penalty be not levied against it under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').3. After the cause was shown and the assessee was heard, the ITO, vide his order dated 23-3-1979, was satisfied that the assessee had committed the offence under Section 27...
Jyoti Industrial Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1059DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application filed before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, stands transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The point that arises for decision is whether the fabric manufactured by the appellant and described by him as "unprocessed cotton fabric belting cloth woven as such" in the classification list is exempt under Notification No. 70/69, dated 1-3-1969 or not.Admittedly, the fabric produced is of width of 91 centimeters and 103 centimeters and is cut to required size to make it suitable for belting of the machinery on which they are used.3. The Assistant Collector, in his order dated 14-7-1975, observed that the fabric in question has a weave of canvas cloth and has a width of 91 cms and could not be termed as belting "by any stretch of imagination". This view was based on a report of the Chemical Examiner who opined that the sample had weave construction of c...
Aditya Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1853TriDel
1. This appeal by M/s Aditya Mills Limited, a company stated to be owning and running a spinning mill at Madangarh, Kishanganj, State of Rajasthan, (hereinafter referred to as the Company) is directed against an order passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Delhi on 22-2-1980, upholding an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ajmer dated 3-7-1979.2. The facts giving rise to the controversy, as stated in the grounds of appeal, are that the petitioner-company had filed a Classification List on 10-4-1978 as required under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and had, inter alia, shown one of its products styled as 'PPRF' against column 5 of the proforma list, indicating that this yarn the company considered to be not exigible to any excise duty, having been prepared out of duty paid yarn. However, this list was returned by the concerned Inspector intimating the company that this view was not acceptable to the Department and that this product was l...
indrajit Barua Vs. the State of Assam and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi513
Prakash Narain, J. (1) What is most precious to any man is his life. Next to that his personal liberty. 'That is why life and liberty are two basic human rights which are ensured to every man, woman and child in any civilised society. This is recognised by our Constitution and is enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 21. Indeed on such a' high pedestal have these two rights been placed by the Constitution that Article 21 is couched in a language which is by way of a direction or injunction to all and sundry, including the State, that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. (2) In any organized society it is a basic postulate that the rule of law is supreme. thereforee, it is only procedure established by law which could entitle the taking away of a person's life or personal liberty. 'The power to deprive a man of his basic-human right of either' life or personal liberty is necessitated because of the impera...
Operation Research Group Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1797TriDel
1. The controversy in this appeal revolves round the claim of appellants that they were entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 272/76, dated 2-8-1976 in respect of their goods described as "Floppy Disk Drive Model FD 511". They filed the refund claim, after seeking the re-assessment at the concessional rate, as envisaged by the aforesaid notification, on the plea that these goods were parts of computer sub-system, and as such entitled to the benefit of notification No. 272/76 as amended by notification No. 47/79.2. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector by his order dated nil despatched on 20-1-1979 on the ground that the notification on which the appellants placed reliance exempted only computers and sub-assembly thereof, and since the Department of Electronics in their letter dated 27-6-1978 had characterised these goods as "Computer Peripheral", they could not be covered by the said notification.3. The Appellate Collector also dismissed the appeal filed by...
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD521(Delhi)
1. The revenue has filed IT Appeal No. 107 (Nag.) of 1981. The assessee has filed cross-objection No. 5 (Nag.) of 1981. In addition, the assessee has also filed an appeal in which the same grounds are taken as in the cross-objection and that appeal is FT Appeal No. 157 (Nag.) of 1981. All these relate to the assessment year 1972-73. IT Appeal No.157 (Nag.) of 1981 has been filed late and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. According to the assessee's application, the delay occurred because the assessee's appeals were heard in Delhi being transferred from time to time by the President on the application of the assessee for the earlier years. For this year, the assessee sent the papers to Delhi for filing the appeal but it was later on found that the appeal should have been filed only at Nagpur.In this process a short delay occurred. Having perused the assessee's application and also having heard the arguments of both the sides, we condone the delay. As alrea...
M/S Indian Handicrafts (Partnership), New Delhi and Others Vs. Delhi D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1983
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT10a
ORDER1. Are the prosecutions, instituted by the Delhi Development Authority, against owners and occupiers of two premises, forming subject-matter of this batch of petitions, under Art. 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. for offences under Section 29(2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, on allegations of misuse of residential premises for a commercial purpose, contrary to the Master Plan for Delhi, liable to be quashed on any ground. 2. The principal ground of challenge to the validity of the prosecutions in the petitions was based on implied compounding of the offences and/or estoppel arising out of the policy announced by the Authority in a public advertisement, incorporating a representation that the non-confirming use could continue until the allotment of alternative accommodation, provided the non-conforming users deposited a specified amount by way of premium within a specified time and agreed to other terms and conditions of the po...
Indian Handicrafts and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ414; 1983(2)Crimes753; 24(1983)DLT250
H.L. Anand, J. (1) Are the prosecutions, instituted by the Delhi Development Authority, against owners and occupiers of two premises, forming subject-matter of this batch of petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for offences under Section 29(2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, on allegations of misuse of residential premises for a commercial purpose, contrary to the Master Plan for Delhi, liable to be quashed on any ground. (2) The principal ground of challenge to the validity of the prosecutions in the petitions was based on implied compounding of the offences and/or estoppel arising out of the policy announced by the Authority in a public advertisement, incorporating a representation that the .non-conforming use could continue until the allotment of alternative accommodation, provided the non-conforming users deposited a specified amount by way of premium within a specified time and agreed to other ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›