Delhi Court August 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 5 of about 86 results (0.022 seconds)Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1880TriDel
1. The point in controvesy in this Revision Petition [Now being disposed of as an appeal having been received by transfer to the Tribunal under Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962] falls within a very short compass. Appellants, namely, the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.(Wvg) Co. Ltd., imported a consignment of what was described as "Pan-Glass Spinnerettes" vide Bill of Entry 11639 dated 1-11-1977.These were assessed to basic customs duty with reference to Tariff Item 70.21, and as a corollary-the goods having been treated to be glass products, countervailing duty was charged by reference to Tariff Entry 23A(4) of the C.E.T., which entry covers generally all such articles of "glass and glassware", not specified elsewhere.2. After the goods were released on payment of the duty as assessed, the appellants filed a refund claim on the contention that the appropriate heading for these goods was Tariff Heading 84.38 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and that the Department had taken a mistaken v...
Tag this Judgment!Miles India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1535DTri(Delhi)
1. Messrs Miles India Ltd., have filed four Revision Applications (hereinafter referred to as "appeals"), which under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, are to be dealt with as if they were appeals before the Tribunal. These appeals involve a common issue and were listed together, It was then observed that some of the orders-in-appeal of the Appellate Collector covered more than one order-in original. The details are set out in Annexure to this Order. Accordingly, the appellants were advised to file supplementary appeals to the Tribunal.No such appeals have up to now been received in the Registry. This combined Order may therefore be taken as covering only four separate orders-in-appeal, arising out of four orders-in-original, whose particulars are given below :-Tribunal's File No. of Appellate No. of AssistantNo. Collector's Order-in- Collector's Order- Appeal in-Original1. 513/80 S/49-23/80 Air S/12-1036/79-80 ACU dt. 25-7-80 dt. 24-10-792. 367/80 S/49-625/79 Air S/12-1809/78-79...
Tag this Judgment!Chokshi Tube Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2362TriDel
1. Appellants, M/s. Chokshi Tube Ltd., have filed this appeal to the Tribunal against Order-in-Appeal No. A-713/BD-198/83, dated 30-3-1983, passed by Shri B.K. Agarwal, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. By the said order, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad's order dated 14-9-1981 demanding Rs. 2,59,571.00 as duty from the appellants was upheld.2. For proper appreciation, history of the case is necessary. The appellants at their factory at Vatva Industrial Area, Ahmedabad had been manufacturing 'Stainless Steel Pipes & Tubes' since 1972 from "Stainless Steel Strips, Plates, Sheets etc. imported from abroad". On these imports, Customs and countervailing duty, as prescribed from time to time had already paid. The appellants claim that under bonafide impression that no excise duty was payable on pipes and tubes maunfactured from the imported stainless steel strips, plates and sheets on which countervailing duty had already been paid, they did not pay duty till ...
Tag this Judgment!Piya Pharmaceutical Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1367DTri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have filed an appeal No. 67/83 to the Tribunal against order dated 6-10-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. The said order calls upon the appellants to pay Rs. 1,12,188.27 as duty of Excise and Rs. 25,000 as penalty.2. The appellants filed Stay application in the appeal. Shri K.Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellants at the hearing of the Stay application contended that right of appeal is a matter of substantive right and not merely a matter of procedure and thus right become vested in the appellants when the proceedings were first initiated against them, by issue of show cause notice dated 8-5-1981 and order passed by the Collector on 6-10-1982. This right could not be taken away by subsequent legislation except by express enactment or necessary intendment. Shri Narasimhan submitted that Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) requiring an appellant to make deposit of duty and penalty as pre-condition ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)6ITD465(Delhi)
1. The assesses is a co-owner of a property known as Ward of Hotel, Bombay. She has l/4th interest. The property was tenanted and it appears from the materials placed before us that the rent remained unpaid. The assessee therefore claimed her portion of the rental income as irrecoverable rent while computing the annual letting value of the property. This claim of hers was rejected up to the stage of the Tribunal, for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee once again claimed deduction of the amount on the ground that the rent is irrecoverable for the assessment year 1976-77, which is the year under appeal. The additional factor which has been brought on record so far as this year is concerned is that the assessee filed a suit for recovery of the amount while in the preceding year the suit was not yet instituted. The claim was again disallowed by the ITO on the ground that mere institution of legal proceedings cannot be a ground for allowing the amount as irrecoverable rent. The AAC ...
Tag this Judgment!Global Technical Services (P.) Vs. Income-tax Officer (Nz)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)6ITD725(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by an assessee, a Private Ltd. Company, against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in limine.2. The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the ITO under Section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee filed the form of appeal in Form No. 35 prescribed under Rule 45 of the Income-tax Rules. The form has been signed on behalf of the assessee. The form of verification has also been signed. In between there is statement of facts and grounds of appeal. A blank space is provided for signature below the grounds of appeal but that has not been signed on behalf of the assessee. In other words, it remained blank. The Commissioner (Appeals) having looked to the memo of appeal filed, noticed the absence of signature underneath the heading 'grounds of appeal'. He thought fit to reject the appeal in limine as not maintainable. In so doing he did not call upon the assessee to show cause. In fact, ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Aggarwal Vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT268
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) On 10th August, 1983, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I quashed the impugned order of detention dated 22nd April, 1933, and directed that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith. I had stated then that I would give my reasons later which I do presently. (2) The detenu Mohinder Kumar Aggarwal was detained by the aforesaid order of the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under Sections 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter to be referred to as COFEPOSA') 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and also preventing him from smuggling goods viz., diamonds out of India'. (3) The grounds of detention dated 23rd April, 1983, were served upon him on the very day. Briefly the facts disclosed in the grounds are that on the night of 16/17-12-1982 16/17-12-1982 the detenu...
Tag this Judgment!DeseIn (New Delhi) (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ330
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) :-RULE D.B. The petitioner challenges the fixation of the pension. This is one of those unfortunate cases where there is delay in giving the pension/contribution by the Central Government. The suffering is to the deceased dependent's. It is a case of pure and simple callousness. The deceased-husband of petitioner No. 2 was an employee of an Establishment which was given notice on October 27, 1973, that as per the enquiry by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner the employees' provident fund and family pension fund were applicable to the pension from 14-6-67 and that it was liable to pay contribution for both with effect from 1-7 1972. (A specific direction was given that the Establishment comply with the requirements on an employee's provident fund and family pension fund and the scheme now sought with effect from 1-7-1972. Not only that a memorandum was issued on July 23, 1975 under Section 14-B of the Act which is attached as P-3. This shows that the damage...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. G. L. RungtA.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]17ITD826(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri P. V. B. Rao, Vice President (NZ) - This appeal raises an interesting question under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act), in the following circumstances :The assessed is an employee of Gwalior Transport (P.) Ltd., While he was staying in the guest house of the company known as Daga Sadan at Ujjain the customs and central excise authorities searched the room in which the assessed was staying and found certain wooden boxes concealed under the bed. Gold and silver ornaments and cash were recovered from the wooden boxes seized by the customs and central excise authorities. The value of gold and silver ornaments plus the case came to Rs. 3,32,076. The customs authorities (Collector of customs) initiated proceedings against the assessed for contravention of sections 11 and 11D of the Customs Act, 1962 and sections 7 and 16 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The Collector of customs in a fairly well discussed and elaborate order dated 17-4-1978 held that the assessed is not in any wa...
Tag this Judgment!Khader Knitting Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT176TriDel
1. This matter which was a revision petition before the Government of India directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 951/78 dated 17-6-1978 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras, is now before us as an appeal having been received by transfer to the Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises a id Salt Act, 1944, and is being taken up for disposal as such. It first came up before the Bench on 29th July, 1983.2. Shri K.K. Kapoor, Consultant appeared for the appellants whereas Department was represented by Shri Hem Prakash, JDR. It was observed that the only controversy raised before the lower authorities by the appellants, was as to entitlement to the benefit of exemption Notifications; being Notifications Nos. 54/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 and No. 105/76-C.E., dated 16-3-1976. Both these Notifications have reference to the number of workers employed in a factory during a particular period and in order to get the benefit thereof, the manufacturers had to est...
Tag this Judgment!