Delhi Court July 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.
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1159DTri(Delhi)
1. These are two revision applications (hereinafter called "appeals") filed before the Central Government which under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, stand transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of' as if they were appeals presented before the Tribunal.2. Both these appeals relate to Nylon Tyre Yarn type 66 which was imported by the appellants and which was charged to basic customs duty as well as countervailing (additional) customs duty. Two main issues have been raised by the appellants in these appeals. One of these relates to the inclusion of landing charges in the value of the goods for the levy of basic customs duty. The other relates to the legality of levying countervailing duty on the goods.3. At the outset, Shri Ignatius stated that certain writ petitions filed by the appellants on similar issues were pending in the High Court. He therefore requested that decisions on these appeals be kept in abeyance pending disposal of the writ petitions. In reply to our query,...
Ashok Asbestos Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2435TriDel
1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows. The appellants switched over to the simplified procedure under Chapter VII-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from 1-3-76 for paying Central excise duty on the goods manufactured by them. One of the conditions of this simplified procedure was that they should have to pay the duty on their closing stocks as on 29-2-76 within 14 days from 1-3-76 and at the rate in force on 29-2-76. Thus, the last date available to the appellants for clearing their pre-simplified procedure stocks was 14-3-76. However, they did not comply with this condition and instead addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise in the following terms :- "We are unable to remove and pay duty of the goods lying with us as on 29th Feb. '76. There is no buyer in the market. "Hence it is requested that the goods will be removed and duty paid as and when there will be buyer in the market." In accordance with their above request, they went on clearin...
H.A.i. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2041TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 18-1-1980 against order-in-appeal No.C3/1530/1979 dated 18-7-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, has been transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. An Altitude Test Chamber was imported and assessed under heading 85.59(1) of the CTA as machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not elsewhere specified. A claim was made for re-assessment under heading 90.28(4) read with 90.16(2) or 90.28(4) read with 90.25 or under any other heading on the strength of a technical write-up from the Production Engineer (Methods). The article is described as a leak proof box suitable for creating vacuum inside the chamber to stimulate different altitude conditions on ground to test the operation of barostatic capsule of barostatic time release unit fitted on Martin Baker Ejection Seat used on Ajeet aircraft manufactured by the importers. The Asstt....
Mohinder Pal Singh Randhawa Vs. Gurcharan Kaur Randhawa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT232
Leila Seth, J. (1) This is a husband's appeal against the judgment and order, dated 17th February, 1982, passed by Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional District Judge, Delhi. By this order a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (to be referred to as 'the Act'), has been refused. (2) Mr. Mohinder Pal Singh Randhawa, the appellant, was married to the respondent Gurcharan Kaur on 22nd February, 1959 at Delhi. The marriage was celebrated in accordance with Sikh rites. Thereafter, they lived together and had two children. The first was Mohinder Paul, a son, nicknamed Kukki, who was born on 17th February, 1961 at Delhi, and the second was a daughter named Shamin, nicknamed Sherry who was born on 11th April, 1967. (3) On 27/28th July, 1981, the husband moved a petition for divorce on the grounds that his wife had committed adultery, had deserted him and was cruel. He asserted therein, inter alia, that Gurcharan Kaur had left the matrimonial home onllthJuly,1971. According t...
Somany Pilkingtons Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT(2005)TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 13-4-1981 against order-in-Appeal No.2023 dated 6-11-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, has been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Sec. 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The Appellants had imported a Solid/Liquid Separator which was classified under heading 84.59 (1) of the CTA 75, as a general purpose Screening Machine. Duty was paid on 12-8-1980. In a letter dated 30-8-1980 a claim for re-assessment under heading 84.56 was made to the Asst. Collector on the ground that the Separator is for use in the manufacture of glazed tiles (ceramic making machine) mainly for separating ceramic minerals. They also drew attention to Note 5 to Chapter 84 which stated that a machine which is used for more than one purpose is to be treated as if its principal purpose was its sole purpose. They also relied on the Explanatory Notes to the CCCN under heading 84.56 relating to machinery of a kind used mainly in the extracti...
A.S. Ahluwalia Vs. General Manager, Delhi Telephones
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1983
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT143
S.B. Wad, J. (1) How far law protects creative aesthetic expression of an artist 7 Is the intellectual property of an artist governed by the game norms as commercial property Where does the freedom (of expression) of the author and, where does the Director begin What is the scope and width of section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? These are the questions raised in Mannu Bhandari's suit against M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and director. Kala Vikas has produced motion picture 'Samay Ki Dhara' under assignment of filming rights of her novel 'Aap Ka Bunty.' Her complaint is of the mutilation and distortion of the novel. She pleads for permanent injunction against its screening and exhibition. Although many authors complain of such distortions, few have sought judicial protection. Hence, there is no precedent of any law court to guide the film industry. (2) The trial court has refused an ad-interim restraint order. The appeal is against this order. (3) At the time o...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1391DTri(Delhi)
1. The issue in this case is whether the Industrial Tractors, namely, the 'Escort Tractor Hauler' manufactured by the appellants would fall within the ambit of tariff item 34(3a) (now tariff item 3411) or not.On March 26, 1973 the appellants filed the Classification List classifying the Tractor Hauler under tariff item 34(3a) attracting duty at 10% ad valorem. The contention of the appellants is that the Asst.Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad arbitrarily changed the classification of the same on 24-11-1975 to tariff item 34(4) (Motor Vehicles, not otherwise specified) attracting duty @ 15% ad valorem or Rs. 3,000/- per tractor whichever is higher. Shri C. L. Sawhney, on behalf of the appellants, further contended that the action of the Asst. Collector was in violation of principles of natural justice since no show cause notice was issued, nor any opportunity of personal hearing was granted though the appellants sought for the same (In this context attention was drawn to the decis...
Bharat Beedi Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2437TriDel
1. M/s. Bharat Beedi Works (P) Ltd., Mangalore, with Registered Office at Kadri Road, Post Box No. 730, Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the company), had filed eight revision petitions before the Central Government, feeling aggrieved against one common order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras on 24-7-1979 whereby he disposed of eight appeals filed by the Company against eight different orders of the Assistant Collector, passed in respect to different units of the Company. The particulars of the Order-in-Original, and the appeal references are all detailed in the Order-in-Appeal.2. All these revision petitions stand transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be treated as appeals before the Tribunal. These are being disposed of as such.3. The proceedings against the Company emanated from the notices given to different units operating in and around Mangalore where bee...
income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Savita Rani
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD621(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue and the only ground taken is as follows : The AAC erred on facts and law in holding that the provisions of Section 54(1) were applicable to the transaction relating to the transfer of house property No. 44-BD, Old Geeta Colony, Delhi.In order to appreciate the above ground, the following facts in brief may be noticed : 2. The assessee was owner of a house No. 44BD, Old Geeta Colony, Delhi in which she was residing. She sold the house for a sum of Rs. 80,000.Initially she deposited a part of the amount in fixed deposit on 5-10-1978 for 63 months. Later she started construction of her own house at C-1/26, Phase II, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi and spent Rs. 68,000.It further transpires that she got the property at C-1/26, Phase 11, Ashok Vihar by way of gift from her father, Shri P.V. Saran of Ludhiana, by document dated 8-11-1978. The formal transfer could not be effected in favour of the assessee because of certain formalities to be complied with as per t...
Bhagwat Sarup Alias Bhagwat Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT341
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) On 11/05/1979 at about 2.30 p.m. an occurrence took place near the Khirka (tabela) of Moonga in the area of Motia Khan in which, it is alleged, Kalu alias Kalua caught the deceased Yasin from behind and Bhagwat exhorted that Yasin be finished and upon which Jaswant took out a Chhuri from the dub and gave a blow on the right thigh of Yasin which proved fatal.(2) All the said three accused were tried on the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case found all the accused guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life.Against their conviction and sentence the accused have preferred separate appeals to this Court. This judgment shall dispose of all the appeals.(3) Briefly, the case for the prosecution is that the deceased Yasin had kept 22 goats at the Khirka of Moonga (P.W. 1). On 11/05/1979at about 2.30 p.m. Yasin had gone to the Khirka fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »