Delhi Court September 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 1 of about 72 results (0.024 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Industrial Marketing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2507Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents, M/s Industrial Marketing Corporation manufacture Varnished Fibre Glass Cloth, Varnished Sleevings and Varnished Fibre Glass Tapes. Under his order dated 25-7-1981 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division C-II classified the first two products under Tariff Item 22B-CET and the last one under Tariff Item 68-CET.The respondents preferred an appeal in respect of the classification of the first two items. Under his order dated 23-10-1981, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector in the said matter and held that the said two products were also classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68-CET. Under notice dated 21-9-1982 the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as it then stood, indicated to the respondents that it proposed to revise the order of the Appellate Collector and restore the classification to Tariff Item 22B-CET. Under the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Rattan Mahajan Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2517TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed by the Central Government against an order in review, passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, of the order in adjudication dated the 31st May, 1977, and transferred to the Tribunal presumably under Section 131-8(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. On transfer to the Tribunal it was numbered as CD(DEL)(T) A. 1521/80 and was taken up for hearing yesterday, and at the request of Shri Bedi, today.3. It appeared to us that the instant matter should not have been transferred in terms of the proviso to Section 131-B(2) of the Act as it now reads, inasmuch as neither the fine nor the penalty levied in the case exceeds Rs. 10.000/-.4. In terms of the proviso to Section 131-B(2) of the Act, a proceeding pending before the Central Government which relates to an order where- determined by such order, does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-, such proceeding or matter shall continue to be dealt with by the Central Government as if Section 131, as i...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Vadera Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)7ITD264(Delhi)
1. to 8. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 9. The last ground in these appeals relates to additional wealth-tax liability under paragraph A(2) to Schedule I to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The assessee contended that the entire property at 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, on which the multi-storey flats were being constructed should be treated as business premises of the assessee in order to get the exemption from additional wealth-tax levy.This has been rejected by both the authorities below and this ground is pressed before us. (2) In addition, in the case of every individual and Hindu undivided family, where the net wealth of the individual or Hindu undivided family includes the value of any asset, being building or land (other than business premises) or any right in such building or land, situated in an urban area (such asset being hereafter in this Part referred to as urban asset). (i) 'business premises' means any building or land or par...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)7ITD289(Delhi)
1. The departmental appeal and the cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The main ground in the departmental appeal relates to the deletion of Rs. 99,00,000 which had been added by the IAC. The relevant facts regarding this issue are that the assessee-company ('GEC') had been working as the sole distributor for Motor Industries Company Ltd. ('MICO') regarding sale and service of its products and in certain territories in the northern part of India including Delhi. From 1964 to February 1976, this arrangement was carried on merely some ad hoc basis. On 10-2-1967, there was an agreement in writing between the assessee-company and MICO. The main features of this agreement were as under : (i) MICO appointing GEC as the sole distributor for spark plugs manufactured by it and of other product in the territorie specified in the northern region of India and Delhi. (ii) The products were to be purchased o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)-i Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]149ITR245(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. These reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', have been heard together as identical question of law have been referred to the High Court for its opinion. The assessment in respect of which these references arise are 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 the relevant accounting years being the calendar years 1958, 1959 and 1960. Form the Tribunal's judgment for each of the assessment years, both the Commissioner and the assessed applied for reference being made to the High Court. thereforee, for each of three assessment years, common references have been made for such questions of law as the Tribunal thought should be referred on the applications moved by the Commissioner and the assessed. The law applicable for each of the three assessment years was the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. 2. The questions referred to the High Court in I.T. Rs. Nos. 114 and 115 of 1972 (assessment year 1959-60) are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Lal Malhotra Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes108; 25(1984)DLT405
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.(1) In case Fir No. 939 police station Moti Nagar, West Delhi, Shri S.C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicted the appellant Jagdish Lal Malhotra under section 32 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The court on trial of the appellant came to the conclusion that on the night intervening 22nd and 23rd October 1979 between 3.30 Am to 3.45 Am the appellant had sprinkled Kerosin oil on his wife, Smt. Santosh Malhotra and set her on fire. This was done by the appellant while she had gone to the bath room for urination. He further found that as a result of this the deceased Santosh Malhotra got 100% burns consequent to which she died in the Willingdon Hospital at 8.15 Am on 23rd October, 1979. (2) The relevant facts are that the appellant was married to Santosh Malhotra deceased in the year 1960. The married life of the couple proved to be unhappy as they used to quarrel constantly. The deceased had given birth to...
Tag this Judgment!Amber Bearing Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT278TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order No. 1/82, dated 10-8-1982 of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur. In this order, the Additional Collector has held that the "outer races" manufactured by the appellants for taper roller bearings were liable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. (The word "manufactured" is used for convenience and without prejudging the appellants' contention that no process of manufacture was involved). In addition to demanding duty on the outer races seized as well as those held to have been clandestinely removed, the Additional Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants.2. The main contention of Shri Habbu, who appeared for the appellants, was that the "outer races" could not be considered as having been manufactured, that the processes carried out on them were on behalf of M/s. Metal Box India Ltd., who supplied the appellants with the raw material for the outer races, and to whom the latter were retur...
Tag this Judgment!Stretchlon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2076TriDel
1. The five appeals, captioned above, involve common questions arising out of consolidated Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs on 17-9-1980 whereby he dismissed five separate appeals, filed by the appellants against the Orders of the Assistant Collector, passed separately rejecting the refund claims of the appellants.2. The question which falls for determination in these appeals, pertains to the interpretation of the wording of a Notification, whereunder the appellants claimed exemption from payment of customs as well as auxiliary duty on the yarn imported by them, by way of replenishment, under Import Licence, against export of fabrics effected by them.3. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of the said Notification, in order to properly appreciate the scope of the controversy. The Notification under reference being Notification No.20/F. No. 609/192/ 76-DBK dated 7th February, '1977, so far as it is relevant for the purposes of these appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwal NaraIn Vs. L.F. Tellis
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR10
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Respondent was inducted as a tenant in the premises comprising 4 rooms, 2 verandah in the 1st floor and open space on the top floor, in a three storeyed house No. 44 Lekh Ram Road, in Darya Ganj, Delhi, some time in 1953. Late Lala Ram Narain terminated the tenancy by a notice of 8.9.1975 served on the respondent in Bombay. He filed an eviction application against the respondent on the ground of bona-fide requirement on 1.10.1975. That application has now been placed on record. He stated in his application that the premises are owned by Huf of which he was the karta. The Huf consisted of his son Kanwal Narain and his grandsons. In 1972, the respondent shifted to Bombay and promised to vacate the premises but failed to do so. The accommodation available with the applicant was insufficient for the family. He died on 19.10.1975. That application was dismissed on 23.2.1976. (2) Shri Kanwal Narain an Advocate claiming as the Karta of the Huf again sent a notice to the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Late H.H. Sir Sawai Man Singhji of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)7ITD401(Delhi)
1. These six appeals by the WTO and the cross-objections thereto and also six appeals by the assessee pertain to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77 and since all of them raise a single common question of law, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The cross-objections by the assessee are merely the duplication of the appeals filed by him except that in the cross-objection the grounds are slightly more explicit and detailed. Briefly the facts are that H.H. Sir Sawai Man Singhji of Jaipur died on 24-6-1970 leaving behind him a widow Maharani Gayatri Devi and four sons. There is an old dispute between the assessee and the revenue whether the property held by the late Maharaja was his individual property or the HUF property in his hands. So far as the Tribunal is concerned this point has been decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the property held by late Maharaja was HUF property. The assessee who is the son of late Maharaja and claims to be the karta of HUF ...
Tag this Judgment!