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.
Shellya Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1168DTri(Delhi)
1. The short point involved in this case is whether plastic sacks, known as high density polythelene woven sacks, are classifiable under item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff or under item 68 thereof.2. The appellants were not present when the case was called for hearing today. Their letter dated 27-6-83 was brought to our notice in which the appellants have stated that their case may be decided on the basis of their submissions made in their revision application (now the subject appeal before us after its transfer to the Tribunal) since they were not in a position to attend the hearing. We, therefore, decided to take up the case on merits.3. We find from the records that the appellants were called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 7,731.55, being the duty leviable on HDPE woven sacks during the period from 1-3-75 to 30-6-75 at the rate of 1% under item 68 CET. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 250.00 was also imposed on them under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for violation ...
Ashoka Holdings Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD83(Delhi)
1. The question involved in this appeal is somewhat interesting and it relates to the manner of giving benefit of tax deducted at source. The matter can be better understood with reference to a few facts which may be stated hereunder : The assessee has given some loans to two concerns, namely : (i) New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. ; and (ii) Panchsheel Shipping Co. Ltd. It receives interest from these two concerns on the amounts lent. The assessee follows mercantile system of accounting and its accounting year is the financial year ending on 31-3-1979 relevant for the assessment year 1979-80. Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, it included the interest accrued on the advances made by the assessee to the aforesaid two concerns for the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee also filed certificates under Section 203 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in order to claim the tax deducted at source in respect of the interest receivable from the two concerns. T...
Suniti Bala Datta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT205
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the landlady is directed against the judgment and order dated July 6, 1979 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby her first appeal was dismissed only on the ground that no proper notice terminating the contractual tenancy of the tenant State of Uttar Pradesh, has been served on the tenant. (2) The appellant had filed an eviction petition originally against the Export Trade Development Officer, Government U.P. Handicrafts and Government U.P. So there were two respondents in the original eviction petition. The ground taken for eviction was under clause (a) to proviso (1) to Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. non-payment of rent. Subsequently the eviction petition was amended and State of U.P. was imp leaded as a party through its Secretary. (3) The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents assigned by one Joint Industrial Director and the main plea was that no valid notice terminating the contractual tenancy was...
Bharat Krishak Samaj Vs. M.L. Kakkar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ251Del
1. This is a petition by Bharat Krishak Samaj (Farmers Forum India) impugning the order of the Labour Court, dated 4th July, 1980. 2. These are the facts : Respondent 3, Prithi Singh is the workman. He was working as a driver with the management of Bharat Krishak Samaj from 1960 to 1976 his services were terminated by the Samaj. So he raised an industrial dispute. The Delhi Administration under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act) referred it to the Labour Court. 3. Contemporaneously he made an application under S. 33C of the Act alleging that he did four extra work beyond his normal working hours and he was not paid overtime wages for this period of sixteen years. He claimed overtime wages at the rate of Rs. 8 per day, for working four hours a day. The total amount he claimed was Rs. 36,795. 4. Both the claims were contested by the Samaj before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the workman's services were illegally terminated. Before the question of reinstatement ...
Chemicals and Fibres of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1544DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Chemicals & Fibres of India Limited, a Public Limited Company, hereinafter referred to as the CAFI, filed appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on 7th of December, 1982 against the Order No. V-2(18)l659/82/11075 dated 5th November, 1982 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The related Order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay is of 26th May, 1982 [Order No. V(18)4-l 2/82-3093]. The Appeal is signed by the Secretary of the appellant company and, therefore, is in conformity with the rules and procedure prescribed.2. The appellant manufactures polyester staple fibre which is sold under its brand name Terene.3. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Bombay issued a show cause- cum-demand notice on 3rd March, 1982, a copy of which has been given to us by the appellant as Exhibit '3' at page 33. In the said communication, it was stated that the CAFI with intent t...
Paros Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2013TriDel
1. In this revision application, transferred to this Tribunal and heard by us as an appeal pursuant to Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, the only issue that arises is a question relating to the bar of limitation prescribed in Section 27-B of the Customs Act.2. Admittedly, the duty on import was paid on 14-1-1976, without any protest whatsoever. A claim for refund under Section 27 of the Act was made to the Asst. Collector of Customs, Bombay on 10-9-1976, that is to say, beyond six months from the date of payment.3. The Assistant Collector of Customs, as well as the Appellate Collector rejected the claim on the ground of bar of limitation in terms of Section 27-B of the Customs Act.4. The only submission made by Shri Ganesan in this appeal before us is that, notwithstanding the various decisions of the Tribunal in-(Ruby Products, Bombay v. C.C., Bombay), he would still press his contention that the claim for refund was not barred by limitation, particularly in view of the fact tha...
Deccan Sugar and Abkhari Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2430TriDel
1. M/s. Deccan Sugar & Abkhari Co. Ltd., Madras (hereinafter referred as the appellant) filed Revision Application under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as the Act) before the Government of India against the order No. A. 294/76 (G)-C.No. 7/1/28/6 dated 21st June 1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Madras. The R.A. has been transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provision of Section 35-P of the Act to be disposed of as Appeal.2. The Appeal was earlier dismissed for default of appearance on 7th of June, 1983 and Order was dictated immediately in the Court. However, the appellant's Advocate appeared on the same day before the Court and submitted that he has delayed by breakdown of his car. The dismissal order was set aside on the 8th June, 1983 and case fixed for hearing today.3. At present the appellant is a Division of M/s. Nava Bharath Ferro Alloys Limited because under the scheme of amalgamation ...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Harendralal Bhattacharyya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ310
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This case is the tale of a man who lost his balance of mind due to financial difficulties, and has thereby posed a nice legal problem. Harendralal Bhattacharyya was born on 1st September, 1921. He is a displaced from what was formerly East Pakistan, and is now BangiaDesh. On 10th August, 1949 he was appointed a stenographer in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. In 1958, he qualified for the Subordinate Accounts Service. Shortly afterwards, in 1959, he was promoted to the post of Accountant. In the course of time, he rose to be a Senior Personal Assistant in 1974.(2) On account of being a displaced person, Bhattacharyya was able to obtain the allotment of a plot of land from the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India in 1971. This became the cause of all his woes. The plot was situated in Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, and measured 160 sq, yds By the terms of allotment he was required to construct a house thereon within 2 years....
Manak Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT227; 1984(6)DRJ288
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this Letters Patent Appeal the challenge is to the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court who had dismissed the appellants' writ petition and had upheld the order of the Appellate Officer passed under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951.(2) The dispute in this case relates to three Thallas i.e. open platforms, in front of shops situated in Katra Allaha Dia, Delhi. Appellants Nos. I to 9 are purchasers of the interests of the non-evacuee co-sharers (appellant Nos. 10 to 14) in the shops behind the Thallas in dispute. Some of the co-sharers of the said shops were evacuees and by an adjudication order dated 22nd August, 1962 the share of the non-evacuee claimants was determined at 19/40th and of the evacuee in the Custodian at 21/40.(3) The interest of the evacuee and the non-evacuee co-sharers had to be separated. Section 10 of the said Act prescribes the procedure for separating the said interest. It, inter alia, provides for ...
Shardlow India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2428TriDel
1. The only question arising for decision in the present proceedings is whether certain goods known as 'drop forging die', 'counter blow die' and 'upset die' fall for classification within item 51-A (iii) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (GET) and if not, under which Item would they fall.2. The lower authorities took the view that the subject goods, which were dies, fell under Item No. 51-A (iii) as tools designed to be fitted into machine tools. The appellants contested this decision but their contentions did not find acceptance and hence the present appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government against the order dated 21-8-1979 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras and which now stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.3. The appeal was heard on 7-7-1983 when Shri Rama Subramaniam, Advocate, represented the appellants a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »