Delhi Court October 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.
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC323Tri(Delhi)
1. The present appeal was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government against Order-in-Appeal No. 246/81 dated 31-3-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras.On the setting up this Tribunal, it was transferred in terms of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., the appellants (hereinafter referred to for brevity's sake as N.L.C.) received a quantity of 4451.716 K.L. of Furnace Oil during the period from March, 1979 to 15-7-1979 without payment of Excise duty under Chapter X Procedure to be used as feed-stock in the manufacture of fertilizer in accordance with Central Excises Notification No. 147/74 dated 30-10-1974. The actual manufacture of fertilizer (urea) commenced only from 16-7-1979. Till this date the furnace oil obtained in terms of the aforesai...
P.L. Goel Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD137(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1977-78. In the year of account, the assessee received retrenchment compensation to the extent of Rs. 21,908.20. The assessee claimed that in view of Section 10(705) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), it was exempt from tax. The assessee joined the National Mineral Development Corporation as consultant on 12-6-1970 on contract for a period of one year as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 9-7-1970. The contract was terminated before the expiry of the period of contract. The assessee took the matter in the Court of law. The Court appointed an arbitrator who gave the award on 11-3-1976, according to which the assessee was entitled to claim Rs. 21,908.20 only from the National Mineral Development Corporation. This amount was received by the assessee on 12-5-1976. The ITO did not allow the exemption. According to him, the assessee was not a workman within the meaning of Section 10(10B). The learned AAC...
N.G. Goel Vs. O.P. Sharaf
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT267
N.N. Coswamy, J.(1) ADMIT. This order will also dispose of Cr 206 of 1983 as both these orders are directed against the eviction order passed against the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not served by ordinary process and were served by publication in a newspaper known as 'Jan Yug'. The petitioner applied to the Addl.Rent Controller for leave to contest the petition which was found to be beyond the period of limitation and as such the application was dismissed on that ground. The petitioner also submitted before the Addl. Rent Controller that there was no proper service and as such the application for leave to contest should be entertained but the Addl. Rent Controller was of the opinion that the service by publication was proper and as such did not consider the request of the petitioners favorably. Consequently eviction order was passed on 17-12-1982. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under order 9 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the s...
Metal Saws Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC437Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point falling for decision in this appeal is whether the refund claim of the appellants was timebarred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not.2. The refund claim arose under Notification No. 51/74-Central Excises dated 1-3-74. This notification gave full exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in respect of specified types of cutting tools cleared by or on behalf of a manufacturer up to a value of rupees one lakh in each financial year subject to the condition, inter alia, that the total value of such cutting tools cleared by the said manufacturer during the same financial year did not exceed rupees two lakhs. The refund claim of the appellants related to the financial year 1975-76.It is their case that they could know only on 31-3-76 as to whether their total clearances in the financial year had or had not exceeded the ceiling limit of rupees two lakhs. Consequently, the fact whether they were entitled to the exemption or not could be known to them ...
Prem Chand and anr. Vs. Sher Singh Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT111
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The appellants-landlords filed a petition for eviction of the respondent in February 1967 on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a)&(e) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act). Rent was claimed from 1st March, 1964 @ Rs. 67.50. They alleged that a notice of demand dated 15th October, 1966 was served upon the respondent but he neither paid nor tendered any amount. In the written statement the respondent alleged that in other proceedings interim rent was fixed at Rs. 55.00 per month. The Additional Controller thereforee passed an order dated 28th July, 1967 under section 15(1) of the Act directing the respondent to deposit arrears of rent fromlstMarch,1964atRs.55.00 per month and future rent at the said rate by the 15thofthe succeeding month till the decision of the case.(2) By order dated 20th July, 1976 the Additional Controller held that the respondent had failed to comply with the order passed under Section 15(1) of t...
Praga Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT367TriDel
1. The question for decision in this Revision Application to the Government of India now transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it, relates to the appellants' claim for benefit under Exemption Notification No. 89/79, dated Ist March, 1979.2. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 17-8-1978 rejected the appellants' claim holding that the total value of all the plant and machinery installed in the factory exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs. The Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, by his order dated 8-10-1980 held that appellants' machine shop could not be considered as separate unit because the same was located in the factory where other goods were also manufactured. He further held that the word 'industrial unit' referred to the whole unit and not to a part. According to him, the expression is synonymous with factory, undertaking or unit. He held that for entitlement of exemption under Notification No. 89/79 the total value of capital ...
Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC232Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application filed by M/s. Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (Government of India Enterprise), before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 207/BR/80 dated 22-7-80 issued under C.No.V/68/2/207- XAP/BR/79/8200-A dated 3-12-80 pased by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. The facts of the case as are apparent from the record are that the appellants are producing copper concentrates, Molybdenite concentrates and Magnetite from mines owned by them. After the introduction of Tariff Item No. 68 with effect from 1st March, 1975 the Appellants paid the excise duty on the Copper Concentrate, Molybdenite concentrates and Magnetite under Item 68 of the C.E.T. The Appellants in their letter dated 19th April, 1979, intimated the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur that these items were not dutiable under It...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gedore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD193(Delhi)
1. By these two reference applications made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Commissioner has required the Tribunal to refer the following question of law, which is stated to arise out of the order of the Tribunal passed in IT Appeal Nos. 1143 and 1826 (Delhi) of 1979 and 696 (Delhi) of 1982 relating to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining the additional ground which had not been raised before the lower authorities 2. By this consolidated order, the Tribunal had not disposed of the appeals but had considered the petitions filed by the assessee seeking permission of the Tribunal to raise certain additional grounds of appeal in both the years under consideration. These additional grounds of appeal were as under: 1. That the learned ITO and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to recognise and give due legal relief owing to the fact that cash compen...
Bina Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT439TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.2. The two appeals involve common issues and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order, a copy of which shall be placed in each file.3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported two consignments of cellulose acetate scrap (C.A,, Scrap, for short). The Customs authorities charged additional (countervailing) duty of Customs on the goods at 50% ad valorem corresponding to the Central Excise duty leviable under Item No, 15A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short).After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so assessed, the appellants preferred claims for refund of the whole of the additional duty paid on the ground that scrap falling under Item 1...
Shubh Chandra JaIn Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes907; 27(1985)DLT246
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) These are two petitions moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for stay of the two prosecutions which have been launched against the petitioner under Section 112 of the Delhi Police Act. (2) According to the petitioner he is operating a guest house at property No. 6-7 Partap Singh Building, Janpath, New Delhi from before 1980. Such guest houses fall under the definition of the term 'Place of public entertainment' as defined in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. Section 28(i)-x empowers the Commissioner of Police by a notification in Official Gazette to make regulations for licensing or controlling places of entertainment and clause (zb) further empowers him to prescribe the procedure in accordance with which any license or permission sought to be obtained or required under the Act should be applied for, and fix fees to be charged for any such license or permission. (3) As a result of the power so conferred by these provisions of Section 28...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »