Delhi Court January 1984 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.
Prabhati Mitra Vs. D.K. Mitra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1984
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT186
Avadh Behari Robatgi, J. (1) This unfortunate matter arises out of matrimonial differences. A girl of 14 and a boy of 11 are living with their mother. Their is a contest between the parents as to which should have their care and custody. Each is attacking the other. The guardian judge has decided that the minors should be transferred to the father's control. From that order mother appeals to this court.(2) The appellant, Smt. Prabhati Mitra, is the mother of the children. The respondent Shri D.K. Mitra, is their father. Their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by this court on 21.5.82. There are two children of the marriage. A daughter Sofia alias Bipasha, a girl 14 years of age. She was reading in 8th class in Lady Irwyn School. The other is a son. Raja alias Tanmoy, a boy 11 years of age. He was studying in 5th class in Frank Anthony School. (3) Unfortunately the marriage of the parties came to grief. The mother left the house on 22.3.1980. On 25.7.1980 she made an ...
Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC1728Tri(Delhi)
1. Vice President in the open court on 13.1.1984. M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Pune have preferred a Revision Application dated 31.12.1976 to the Government of India against the Order-in-appeal No.S-49-1261/1976-R, dt. 30.11.1976, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, which has been transferred to the Tribunal and is now being considered as appeal.2. The short point in dispute in this appeal relates to classification of "DEUTZ F 4 1 912 Diesel Engines" cleared by the appellants vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 3971 dt. 23.3.1976. The goods were declared as "Vertical 4 Cylinder HP-55 2300 RPM" and were assessed to duty under Item 75(10)(i) of I.C.T. The claim for reassessment of these goods under Item 72(a) was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs and by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. It is not in dispute that the Engines in question find predominant use in Agricultural Tractors.3. Shri G.D. Deshpande, Manager Excise of the appellants, appearing on...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv Vs. Loke Nath and Co. (Constructi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
Reported in: [1984]147ITR624(Delhi)
Chadha J.1. These four references under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Department, raise the following question of law for the opinion of the court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs paid by the assessed was not in the nature of penalty for infraction of municipal laws or bye-laws and was thereforee a permissible deduction in arriving at the profits of the business ?' 2. The facts are that in the returns filed for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the relevant previous years ending on March 31, 1968, March 31, 1969, March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971, respectively, the assesseds claimed a deduction of Rs. 4 lakhs having been paid as alleged penalty levied under s 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The assesseds are a partnership firm formed on January 1, 1967, for the purpose of construct...
Metal Extruders (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT198TriDel
1. M/s. Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Limited, Bombay have filed an Application under Section 35-C (ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 wherein they have requested the Tribunal to rectify some mistakes apparent from the record namely Order No. 915/83-B dated 30-9-83. Shri A.K. Gangoli, Advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Ltd. made the following points- (1) In para 4 of the Order referred to above, reference has been made to the appellants having contended that M/s. Alcobex Metals Pvt. Ltd, Jodhpur and M/s. Bhandari Metals Corporation, Bangalore were clearing goods similar to those which were under dispute on payment of nil duty. The Bench has not given its findings on this contention in the order referred to above; (2) In para 4 of the order, reference has been made to Tariff Advice of the C.B.E.C. No. 54/79 dated 27-11-79. The Bench has, however, not given any findings whether the Board Tariff Advice could be retrospective in its effect. (3) In sub-para...
Synthetic and Polymer Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT466TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as Revision Applications before the Central Government which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, have come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.2. Since the issue involved in all the captioned appeals is the same, they are disposed of by this common order. A copy of this order shall be placed in each appeal file.3. The crucial issue arising for determination in these appeals is whether the appellants' products "Epoxy Resins", which were not excisable under Item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule during the base year 1975-76 and which were not included in the base clearances, are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 198/76 when these products became excisable under tariff Item No. 15A(1) GET subsequently, and were cleared during the months January to March, 1978, August to December, 1978 and January to March, 1979.4. There are certain othe...
Mahinder Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT169; 1984RLR1
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) There are two cross-cases both under section 307/34 IPC. Mahinder Kumar petitioner and his party have also been charged under section 25 of the Arms Act whereas the case under section 27 of the Arms Act has also been registered against the other party i.e. Mahinder Singh Chadha and his party. (2) Mahinder Kumar petitioner has now applied for bail. His bail application has already been dismissed first by Shri J.D. Kapur Addl. Sessions Judge during winter vacation and the second by Shri S.R. Goel, Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara. The allegation of the prosecution against the petitioner Mahinder Kumar is that he Along with six companions went in two cars to the place of occurrence. He was armed with a country made pistol while his six companions were armed with hockey sticks. It is further alleged that the petitioner Mahinder Kumar fired a pistol shot which did not hit anybody but just passed by the arm of a passer-by who too remained unhurt. It is pointed out by the...
Ram NaraIn Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes758; 1984(6)DRJ347
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This criminal appeal filed by the convict appellant Ram Narain s/o Chhotey Lal r/o 1517 Tri Nagar, Delhi challenges' the judgment dated 9th April, 1980 passed by Shri R. P. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, where by the appellant was convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code as also the order of sentence dated 10-4-1980 passed by the same court whereby the appellant was dealt with under S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and was directed to be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year to keep the peace and be of good behavior for the aforesaid bond period of one year with a further direction to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during the said period. He was also directed under S. 5 of the said enactment to pay compensation to the injured N.P. Rao in the sum of Rs. 250'- for the ' injuries suffered by him at: the hands of the appellant and also...
Devi Dayal Aluminium Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1984
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT539TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured pressure cookers falling under Item 54 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). They submitted a price-list in respect of their products stating the values and this was approved on the basis of declaration made by the manufacturer and contained in the classification list. The departmental authorities later discovered that the party was claiming from their wholesale purchasers, packing charges in respect of corrugated boxes and wooden cases in which their products were packed at the time of clearance. The department alleged that the party collected a sum of Rs. 9,352.00 between 1-8-75 to 31-9-75 in the name of packing charges on the pressure cookers cleared during the said period. There was, therefore, alleged short levy of Rs. 935.20. A show cause notice was issued and it was held that the contentions of the party that packing is a post-manufacturing expense, excludible from the assessable values was...
Ramsay India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT193TriDel
1. This is a revision application before the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35 P) against the order-in-appeal No. 600-B of 1979 dated 31-12-1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.2. M/s Ramsay India (Pvt) Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter called the 'Appellants') were engaged in the manufacture of Teleprinter Rolls, Teleprinter Tapes, Waxed Paper and Kraft Ammunition Paper. On 31-1-1975 Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants and on verification of the records and accounts found that the appellants had manufactured, stored and removed 3,38,608.06 Kgs. of such paper without obtaining Central Excise Licence, without payment of duty and without observance of other Central Excise formalities. The Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by his order dated 13-10-1976 classified these items under Central Excise Tariff No. 17(2) and 17(4) and demanded duty on the said 3,38,608.06 Kgs. of goods in question ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT156TriDel
1. M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam is a Government Company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.During the period 1978-79 they had manufactured among other things a Floating Cassain Gate and a Flap Typj Gate in their factory situated at Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam and supplied the same to Naval Dry Dock Authorities under a contract valued at Rs. 1,12,55,050.00 (including the cost of towing and transport) without payment of any Central Excise duty.2. M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam did not inform the Department about the fact of the manufacture of these Gates and supply of the same to the Naval Dry Dock Authorities, Visakhapatnam. The Excise Authorities came to know about this fact from the Audit Reports and after perusing the balance sheet of the company for the year ending 31-3-1979.3. Show cause notice C. No, V/4/1/649/81 dated 2-11-1981 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam to M/s.Hindustan Shipyard Ltd....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »