Delhi Court August 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 6 of about 86 results (0.019 seconds)CochIn Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2474TriDel
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. This appeal raises an interesting question a" to the combined effect of two exemption notifications under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, in relation to the same commodity. In order to appreciate the point at issue, it would be useful to set out the relevant facts and background.3. The appellants are a small unit manufacturing metal continers classing able under Item 46 of the Central Excise Tariff. Under Notification No. 97/70-C.E. dated 1-5-1970, manufacturers of such metal containers, whose clearances did not exceed Rupees two lakhs in a financial year, were entitled to exemption on their first clearance of metal containers during the financial year upto the value of Rupees one lakh.4. With effect from...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Cement Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1860TriDel
1. The appellants stated to be manufacturers of asbestos cement pipes, classifiable under Tariff Item 23C of the Central Excise Tariff, are having their unit in Rampur. According to the facts, as set out in the grounds of revision petition, (now being disposed of as an appeal having been received by transfer under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944), the appellants have been paying excise duty on their annual production till the issuance of Notification No.71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 whereunder they claim to have become eligible for total exemption from duty by fulfilling the conditions of the said Notification ; namely, their clearances not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs from year to year.2. It is stated that this unit is owned and managed by a proprietary concern ; namely, Hind Ceramics Limited, situated in the same premises and that the said proprietary concern are manufacturing excisable goods of considerable value, all covered by Tariff Item 68, and since both the units ...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Taneja Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT276
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties today we quashed the impugned detention order dated 30th March, 1983, and while making the rule absolute directed that the petitioner, Harish Taneja, be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained under another valid order passed by a Court or an authority. We had stated that we would give our reasons later which we do presently.(2) To appreciate the contentions of the counsel for the parties it is necessary to notice a few facts.(3) On 4th October, 1982, the petitioner on disembarkation at Bombay airport was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act. He was produced before an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 5th October, 1982, and was remanded to judicial custody from time to time. He was released on bail on 10th November, 1982. On 23rd March, 1983, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, asking him to show cause as to why goods and currenc...
Tag this Judgment!indoglass Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2040DTri(Delhi)
1. In this case, a penalty of Rs. 200/- was imposed on the appellants and duty of Rs. 5,557.72 demanded from them 'under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that during the period from 30-5-1971 to 21-9-1971 they manufactured and removed glass mica tapes and fibre glass varnished tapes without obtaining a Central Excise (Licence and without paying the duty as applicable to electric insulation tapes 'under Item 59 of the Central Excise Tariff. The facts briefly are that Item 59 was introduced in the Central Excise Tariff by virtue of Finance Bill, 1971 effective from the midnight of 29-5-71/30-5-71. Soon thereafter, on 9-6-71 the appellants wrote a letter to the Central Excise authorities at Kalyan in order to find out whether the appellants' product was liable to duty under the new item.This letter was received by the Department on 16-6-71 and the Department informed the appellants that the matter was receiving attention and a further communication would follow s...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Gopi Chand Rawat
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)5ITD667(Delhi)
1. WT Appeal Nos. 62, 60 and 61 (Jp.) of 1981 are the appeals filed by the revenue, whereas cross-objection Nos. 93, 94 and 92 are by the assessee arising out of the appeals of the revenue. Both the appeals as well as the cross-objection relate to the same assessment year, viz., 1975-76.2. WT Appeal Nos. 62, 60 and 61 (Jp.) of 1981 relate to three assessees, i.e., S/Shri Gopi Chand Rawat, Ram Mohan Rawat and S.M.Rawat, respectively, who are the partners of the firm Maliram Puranchand, Jaipur. Since the WT Appeals and cross-objections involve identical contentions and also relate to the same group of the assessees, we have consolidated these appeals and cross-objections for the sake of convenience and the same are disposed of by a common order.All the three assessees are partners in the firm Maliram Puranchand, Jaipur, having one-third share each. The group of appeals in the departmental appeals relate to the value of interest of each of the three assessees in the above firm.3. The fir...
Tag this Judgment!Sayee Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1918DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The question in this case is whether the rubber play balls manufactured by the appellants were covered by the expression "sports goods" in Notification No. 55/75-Central Excises, dated 1-3-75 issued under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and were consequently exempt from excise duty.3. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in his Order-in-Original, had, relying on the Explanatory Notes to the Customs Co-operation Council Nomenclature (CCCN), held that rubber play balls could not be treated as "sports goods", since such balls do not form part of standard sports equipment for various competitive games. His finding was upheld by the Appellate Collector.4. In their appeal and at the personal hearing the ap...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Dr. V. Ramalinghaswami
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)6ITD491(Delhi)
Where assessing officer rejected assessee's claim for 50% deduction under section 80R, however, Commissioner(Appeals) allowed full exemption under section 10(16), the same was justified.Merely because the assessee claimed lesser benefit before the Income Tax Officer, he could not be precluded from claiming his legitimate right before the appellate authority. It is the duty of the revenue authorities to allow all benefits to the assessees which are due to them under the law whether claimed or not. The scholarship clearly fell under section 10(16) and, therefore, the Commissioner(Appeals) was right in allowing full exemption.Exemption under s. 10(16)--SCHOLARSHIP--Received from a foreign institution.Scholarship received from a foreign institution was meant to meet cost of education, therefore, same is fully exempt under section 10(16).The certificate of the concerned foreign institute which gave the scholarship to the assessee, the certificate given by the concerned institute showed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Faquira Vs. Raj Rani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi168; 1984(6)DRJ33; 1984RLR44
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) Two applications under the Partition Act, 1893, have led to this Regular First Appeal which has been filed under Section 8 of the Partition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) The facts giving rise to the two applications can first be shortly stated. Shrimati Radha Rani was the plaintiff in a suit for partition in which she claimed half share in the property in question being No. 6-7 ward No. Xi, Matia Mahal, Delhi. The defendants were Shri Faquira and Shri Amrit Lal. By a preliminary decree dated 28th August, 1982, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in the property and the defendants were entitled to a one-fourth share each. A Local Commissioner was appointed who found that several persons were in occupation of the property including the plaintiff Shrimati Radha Rani and Shri Amrit Lal. The report was to the e:fect that the property cannot be conveniently partitioned.(3) Before dealing with the two application...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chander Vs. Dev Dutt Malik
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT23
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. A suit for specific performance of a contract was filed in which it was contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant for the purchase of a plot of land measuring 601 sq. yards bearing No. 39 E, situated at village Haiderpur (G.T. Karnal Road) in SMA Cooperative industrial Estate.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the receipt dated 2nd June, 1980, photo copy of which has been filed on the record, shows that the defendant had agreed to sell the aforesaid plot of land at the rate of Rs. 195/- per sq. yards and that the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as advance/part payment towards the sale consideration of the aforesaid plot. This receipt was issued by the defendant in favor of one Shri Ramesh Chand Jain.3. It is then contended that the rights of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain under the said agreement to sell were assigned in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated to have paid a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT161TriDel
1. The dispute here is whether Rolitetracycline is Tetracycline hydrochloride or not. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bombay said in his order No. 847/78 dated 11-8-78 that Rolitetracycline intramuscular injection was not eligible to the concession of notification 116/69-CE because it contained lignocaine hydrochloride an anaesthetic a substance he did not accept was therapeutically inert. However, he remained silent on the dispute about Rolitetracycline intravenous injection which M/s. Hoechst claimed was tetracycline hydrochloride but which the Assistant Collector held was not and so disentitled from the concession which was given on tetracycline hydrochloride. M/s. Hoechst has, therefore, filed this appeal ACC/EX/1177 dated 22-12-1978.2. At the hearing on 26-7-83, the learned Counsel for M/s. Hoechst argued that all authorities say that Rolitetracycline was nothing but tetracycline hydrochloride. He referred to Martindale, The Extra Pharmacopoeia- 26 Edn : Ai...
Tag this Judgment!