Delhi Court August 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.
international Minelmegh P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1371DTri(Delhi)
1. These are revision applications filed before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, stand transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as if they were appeals presented before the Tribunal.2. Both the appeals arise out of the above mentioned two orders passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.3. In Appeal No. 153/82 against Order No. 9-Add. Collr./l982 dated 18-9-82, the Additional Collector besides demanding duty on excess clearances effected by the appellant and detailed in the show-cause notice imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,000/-. In Appeal No. 154/82 the Additional Collector besides demanding duty of Rs. 69,193.15 P imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant.4. The issue being common in both the matters, we heard the appellant in both the appeals. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant manufactures switch boards control and relay panels, motor control centres etc., falling under item 68 of the Central Excise...
Ajai Johri and Others Vs. Shingal Land and Finance P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas350(Delhi); 1984(6)DRJ1; 1983RLR746
D.R. Khanna, J. 1. Singhal Land and Finance P. Ltd. was incorporated in 1962 with authorised capital of rupees two lakhs. Its paid-up capital has been Rs. 1,10,500. It has been claiming to effect purchase of land at different places, develop them into plots and sell them. One such colony said to have been developed 'Vijay Park' in village Pavi, Sadiquepur Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. Wide publicity for sale of plots in this colony was given, and as a result about 500 plots were sold to different persons. 2. The five petitioners who have moved the present petition under s. 433/439 of the Companies Act, 1956, were similarly sold six plots as detailed in para. 6 of the petition. The price charged from each of petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 was Rs. 3,000, and from petitioners Nos. 3 and 5, Rs. 4,000 each. Another plot was sold to petitioner No. 6 for Rs. 6,000. Five of these sales were in 1968, and the sixth in favor of petitioner No. 3 in 1970. These plots were described in t...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi358; 24(1983)DLT256
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) AS a result of a contract for constructing 448 dwelling units in the Middle Income Group at Malvia Nagar, New Delhi, some disputes had arisen which were referred to arbitration. By an award dated 27th April, 1977, Shri J. K. Bhatte, Superintending Engineer awarded a sum of Rs. 1,48,145.00 in favor of the contractor. This award was filed in Court and the Delhi Development Authority filed objection, to the same; particularly, to the decision regarding claims Non. 3,5,15,16 and 17. (2) THE objections and the award were considered in Suit No. 394- A/77 on the Original Side of this Court. R. N. Aggarwal, J., rejected the objections holding that there was no error of law on the face of the award nor was there any legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator in making the award. So, the award was made a rule of the Court. Reliance was placed on the judgment of M/s Alien Berry and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India, : [1971]3SCR282 , and N. Chdlappan v. Secretary, Kerala S...
Rajinder Prasad and ors. Vs. Devi Dayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ221
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) We have heard the parties on the question of maintainability of the suit which is the only issue decided by the trial court. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it has rightly been held that the suit does not lie.(2) We have gone through the orders and the judgment. The suit only lies under Order 21 Rule 58(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the objections are dismissed under the proviso to Order 21 Rule 58(1). It does not appear that the objections were dismissed by application of the proviso They were dismissed on the merits. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was hardly any trial. On the other hand, whether the objections are dismissed on a full trial or on any other ground they are dismissed. It is only if they are dismissed on the ground that the property had been sold or on the ground that the court will not entertain the objections because they are delayed that the proviso applies. It is only in this case that the suit ca...
National Mechanical Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2370TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 14th November, 1980 against Order-in-Appeal No. 563/CO/78 dated 30-10-1978, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, has been transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal in terms of Section 35p (2) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. The appellants are manufacturers of parts of refrigerators falling under item 29(A)(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. On 22-5-1970, they removed 6 condensers and 5 chillers under gate passes No. 8 to 10 at the concessional rate of duty of 40% under Notification No. 50/70 dated 1-3-70, instead of 40% ad valorem, specified in Notification No. 80/62 dated 24-4-1962, without fulfilling the conditions of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was a condition of the former notification. After issue of a show-cause notice and grant of a hearing, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, confirmed the demand for differential duty, but did not impose any...
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2037TriDel
1. The two questions arising for determination in this Revision application to Central Govt. transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it are ; (i) whether the demand of differential duty made by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Burnpur by Show Cause Notice dated 13-10-1976 for the period 1-3-1973 to 31-8-1975 amounting to Rs. 17,724.53 and confirmed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Asansol by Adjudicating Order No. 5/Cobble Bundles/ASN/78 dated 27-1-1978 is within limitation, and (ii) Classification of Cobble Bundles -whether they should be classified as re-rollable scrap under T.I. 26AA or Steel Melting scrap under T.I. 26 of the Central Excise Tariff.The appellants bad been for nearly two decades paying duty on 'cobble bundles' as 'Steel Melting scrap' classifying them under T.I. 26 of the C.E.T. Sometime in 1976, Excise authorities felt that the goods were rightly classifiable as re-rollable scrap falling under T.I. 26AA. For the go...
Parke Davis (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT231TriDel
1. This appeal dated 30-9-1979 is presented by M/s. Parke Davis (India) Limited of Bombay against an order of the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bombay No. 411/79 dated 1-5-1979.2. This dispute can be stated very simply. The Central Excise authorities say that CAMOQUIN an anti-malarial should get the exemption of notification No. 116/69-C.E. as Amodiaquine. The Central Excise say that only Amodiaquine can be given the exemption and not camoquin because it (Camoquin) is Amodiaquine Hydrochloride. The Central Excise hold that the Amodiaquine in the Camoquin tablets are a hydrochloride salt of amodiaquine and not amodiaquine itself. The two are not synonymous. Parke Davis argue that the Government itself later amended the notification to read amodiaquine by hydrochloride instead of amodiaquine, an amendment which supported its claim that the two were alike. The Central Excise remained unmoved.3. At the hearing on 26-7-1983, the learned counsel for Parke Davis supporte...
Eastern Bulk Services Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD471(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other by the revenue, arise out of the order dated 31-10-1980 in Appeal No. 414 of 1979-80 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and are disposed of by a common order.2. The asses see is a partnership firm carrying on the business of ship brokers. It mainly helps the foreign ships in finding cargo from a port in foreign country to another port in foreign country, from foreign country to India and from India to foreign country. It also arranges for purchase and sale of ships as well as rigs for exploration of oil in India as well as on the high seas. The assessee derives income by way of commission from the above activities. The commission is entirely received in foreign currency. The previous year for the assessment year 1976-77 ended on 31-3-1976. In this year, as well as in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the lncome-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In th...
Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)Crimes442; 25(1984)DLT285
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Rule D.B. (2) The Deputy Commissioner of Police District, New Delhi served the petitioner with a notice under section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from the union Territory of Delhi for a period of 2 years under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, (3) The relevant part of the notice is as follows : 'You are found to have been involved in the following cases committing offences punishable under Excise Act. Arms Act and committing offences of keeping/receiving stolen property, there are reasonable grounds for believing that you are engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter Xvii of Indian Penal Code. Your movements and acts causing or are calculated to cause alarm danger and harm to the persons and property :- FIR No. 874/69 u/s. 61/1/14 Ex. Act, Fir No. 357/70 u/s. -do- Fir No. 173/71 u/s. -do- Fir No. 378/72 u/s. -do- Fir No. 657/72 u/s. -do- Fir No. 554/73 u/s. -do- F'IR No. 622/...
Zoraster and Co. (Supplies) Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1375DTri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as a revision application to the Central Government, the matter has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and is being treated as an appeal, and disposed of as such.2. Shri Garg, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are manufacturers of woollen felts falling under Tariff Item 68 of C.E.T. During the year 1977-78, the appellants produced goods of 'gross sale price' amounting to Rs. 34,42,961.17. They claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-77 as amended by Notification No. 246/77, dated 15-7-77.3. On scrutiny of the records, the central excise authorities issued a show cause notice to the appellants asking them as to why central excise duty should not be charged on the woollen felts cleared from their factory in the year 1978-79 in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs and also on the goods cleared...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »