Delhi Court March 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.
United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT242TriDel
1.The appellants have preferred the appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, in Order-in-Appeal No. 4161/82 BCH dated 27-7-1982 confirming the order of the Asstt. Collector of less-charge demand for Rs. 7,60,032.72.2. The appellants imported a consignment of colour scanner C-299 and other accessories by air Flight No. DL-353 dated 20-4-1980. In the relevant Bill of Entry, they showed items under Tariff Heading 84.35.The appellants contend that the colour scanner is intended to analyse the colour of a composite transparency or a colour bromide and finally produces four different positives and negatives on graphic art films.The colour scanner also analyses any transparency into four basic colours, viz., yellow, magenta, black and blue. The appellants submit that the colour scanner imported is capable of being used as ancillary equipment in the printing industry only. The assessing officer scored off the Heading 84.35 and inserted the heading 90.25(1) of th...
M.M. Kohli Vs. Ramesh Kohli and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)Crimes484; 1984(7)DRJ32
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against the two orders dated 10-2-1983 and 24-10-1983 passed by Shri Parkash Chand Metropolit Magistrate, New Delhi in the complaint brought by Ramesh Kohli against the petitioner M.M. Kohli, Mrs. Aruna Kohli, Aziz Khan, Mool Chand, Hem Raj and Chhotu under Sections 452/427/147/149 Indian Penal Code vide impugned order dated 10-2-1983 the learned magistrate finding a prima facie case ordered the summoning of all the accused persons for the offences referred to above 3-3-1983. Vide the other impugned order dated 24-10-1983 non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against all the accused persons including the petitioner M.M. Kohli except accused No. 2 Mrs. Aruna Kohli. (2) Ramesh Kohli, M.M. Kholi and J.B. Kohli are real brothers being the sons of late Shri B.C Kohli. Accused No. 2 Mrs. Aruna Kohli is the wife of J.B. Kohli. The remaining accused, namely, Aziz Khan, Mool Chan...
Needle Roller Bearing Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT469TriDel
1. The subject two appeals relate to the same appellants, arise out of a combined Order-in-Appeal and involve a common point of dispute. These were, therefore, taken up together for disposal.2. The point at issue in the two appeals is whether needle roller cages manufactured by the appellants fall under Item 49 or under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. To facilitate the discussion, the two tariff items are reproduced below :-- "49. Rolling bearings, that is to say, ball or roller bearings, all sorts." 3. During the hearing before us today, the appellants pressed for the following three arguments :- (1) Needle roller cages were only a part or component of a bearing and not a complete bearing in themselves. Since Tariff Item 49 covered only complete bearings, parts of bearings rightly fell under Item 68. (2) The show cause notices and demands for duty served on the appellants for the differential higher duty under Item 49 were without jurisdiction as their classification list had e...
income-tax Officer Vs. Amrit Foods (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD681(Delhi)
1. This appeal is by the revenue. The assessee to the appeal is Amrit Foods (P.) Ltd., Ghaziabad, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The year of assessment involved is 1974-75 for which the previous year ended 31-3-1974. As in the past, in the year under consideration, the assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of desi ghee, etc.2. The assessee, who was also engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of food products, such as bakery products, butter and ghee, came to know prior to 1-1-1969 that a party had a margarine plant at Bangalore and that Mr. N.K. Bajaj of the assessee-company had been negotiating with the said party for the purchase of the said plant. The above facts were brought to the notice of the board of directors of the assessee-company in the meeting held on 1-1-1969 as Mr. Bajaj felt that the plant could be purchased at a reasonable price and thereafter it could be sold at a profit. On these facts, the assessee-company in its r...
Saraya Distillery Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi360; 26(1984)DLT256; 1985RLR15
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court dated September 21, 1979. It was dismissed by us by means of a short order dared February 27, 1984. Now we proceed to give reasons for the said decision. (2) M/S Saraya Distillery, the contractor agreed to supply 3, 87, 666 litres of rum to the respondent-Union of India@ Rs. 2. 13 per litre vide agreement dated August 14, 1972. The stores were to be delivered in 5 Installments-90,000 litres rum by 21-9-1972, 90,000 litres rum by 21-10-1972, 90,000 litres rum by 21-11-1972 80 21-11-1972 80 ,000 litres rum by 21-12-1972, and 37, 666 litres rum by 21-1-1973. The contractor supplied only 45,000 litres of rum out of the first lot. He failed to supply the remaining stores inspire of extension of time on his request and and thus committed a breach of the contract. (3) The Union of India claimed a sum of Rs. 3, 35, 888.00 as damages. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 4005.00 was claimed for loss...
income-tax Officer Vs. V. P. Grover and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD613(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri K. C. Srivastava, Accountant Member - This departmental appeal is against the order of the AAC relating to the assessment year 1975-76 by which he has cancelled the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The return which was due to the filed on 31-7-1975 was filed on 23-3-1978. The ITO imposed the penalty as the assessed did not reply to the show-cause notice. While imposing the penalty he worked out the at on the firm as an unregistered firm as provided under law.3. When the matter came before the AAC, it was pleaded before him that the penalty was wrongly imposed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessed. It was also contended that on the completion of the assessment, the ITO had issued a demand notice showing nil demand. As the tax payable on the assessed as a registered firm was lesser than the tax paid in advance at Rs. 11,052, it was contended that the tax payable being nil, no penalty could be imposed in t...
Shiv Ispat Udyog P. Ltd. Vs. Indus Valley
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi405b
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge, dated July 30, 1983. 2. The appellant, Shiv Ispat Udyog P. Ltd., is the seller. They are a company engaged in the manufacture of nuts and bolts. They entered into a contract dated September 19, 1978, with the respondent purchaser, Indus Valley, for the supply of a large quantity of nuts. The value of the goods to be supplied was roughly Rs. 8,00,000. The goods were to be delivered on or before February 28, 1979. Before the time for the delivery of goods arrived, the seller wrote the purchased a letter dated February 2, 1979, asking for extension of time up to March 15, 1979. The purchaser agreed to the extension of time but 'without prejudice to our right of encashing the bank guarantee for default committed by you in supplying the material in terms of the agreement'. In the agreement dated September 19, 1978, clause 5 reads as follows : 'In case the second party does not supply whole quantity...
National Organic Chemical Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC508Tri(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 basic question involved in this appeal is whether the steam generated in the factory of the appellants, employed for internal motive power and thereafter supplied to two other units for their utilisation, is eligible for exemption from excise duty in terms of Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-75. Under this notification goods falling under Item No. 68, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, are exempt from excise duty. The question is whether the steam used in the manner described above qualifies for this exemption. The appellants have also raised the question of limitation, which will be referred ...
Formica India Division Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT590TriDel
1. The dispute in the two captioned appeals revolves round the correct classification, under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (GET, for short), of certain goods-"treated paper, treated fabrics and treated glass fabrics"-manufactured by the appellants hereinafter referred to as Formica). There are also other ancilliary issues to which we shall refer at the appropriate places.2. Since the basic issues are similar in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. The facts of the case in Appeal No. 1516/83-C, briefly stated, are that Formica manufacture Rigid Plastic Laminates. For this purpose, they procure paper, cotton fabrics and glass fabrics as raw materials and treat them with synthetic resin to obtain treated paper, treated cotton fabric and treated glass fabric. Several layers of treated paper/treated fabric are compressed under heat and pressure to form rigid plastic laminates. The treated paper/fabric were consumed captively for the manufacture of rigid...
Kunal Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT326TriDel
1. This appeal is directed againsl the order dated 10-3-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Originally a revision application was filed against the impugned order before the Central Government but on transfer it is being treated as an appeal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture textile spindles which fell under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff at the relevant time. For valuation of their goods the appellants opted for the procedure as set out in Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The said notification provided an alternative mode of valuation under which a manufacturer whose goods were classifiable under item 68 of the C.E.T. could determine his duty on the basis of the invoice price (excluding the duty and local taxes, if any, included in such price). The said notification laid down, inter-alia, that it was optional for an assessee to get his goods valued with reference to the notification or as provided for unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »