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.
Nevichem Synthetic Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT460TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal, for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The facts of the case, as they appear in the impugned order, briefly stated, are that the appellants used to import Vinyl Acetate, a monomer, on which the authorities levied and collected additional (Countervailing) customs duty with reference to Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (hereinafter referred to as CET). The monomer is converted into polyvinyl acetate, a polymer. Till 17-6-77, the appellants were paying excise duty on polyvinyl acetate (hereinafter referred to as PVA) under Item No. 15A(1) (ii) CET. The duty paid PVA was used in the manufacture of adhesives described as Nevisol, Nevisol-SH Nevisol-P, Nevisol-W and Nevisol-ST. The appellants also produce polyvinyl alcohol solutions of 9%...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kanoria Jute Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT455TriDel
1. The point at issue in this appeal is whether Central excise duty was payable on jute pack sheets and jute twine used in the factory of their production for packing of other jute manufactures which were exported out of India under bond.2. The jute manufactures exported were classifiable under Item 22A of the Central Excise Tariff. So too were the pack sheets used for their packing. The stitching twine, although made of jute also, was classifiable under Item 18D. However, Notification No. 56/72-C.E., dated 17-3-72 fully exempted from payment of duty such jute twine as was consumed within the factory of its production "for the manufacture of jute manufactures falling under Item 22A".3. During the period from 24-2-79 to 31-7-79, the respondents used, without payment of duty, some quantity of jute pack sheets and stitching twine for the packing of jute manufactures for export as well as for the packing of jute manufactures cleared for horns consumption.The Department issued a show cause...
Mahindra Engineering and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT680TriDel
1. The point of dispute involved in this appeal is whether tubular shaped arc chamber housings manufactured by the appellants from glass fabrics, which they purchase from outside, fall under Tariff Item 22F(4) or under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. These two Tariff Items read as under :- "22. F. Mineral fibres and yarn and manufactures therefrom, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, the following, namely : (3) any other mineral fibre or yarn, whether continuous or otherwise, such as, slag wool and rock wool; (4) Other manufactures in which mineral fibres or yarn or both predominate or predominates in weight. Explanation.-This Item does not include asbestos cement products." "68. All other goods, not elsewhere specified, excluding- 2. Initially, the subject housings were classified by the Department under Item 68. On 5-12-80, the Assistant Collector issued a notice calling upon the appellants to show cause as ...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Ritu Nanda
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: (1985)14ITD269(Delhi)
1. The appeal is by the revenue and following specific grounds have been raised before us : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC Range 'A', New Delhi, has erred in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to adopt value of Escorts Ltd. shares at cost and not market value. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC Range 'A', New Delhi, has erred in allowing the full liability of Rs. 50,000 under Section 2(m)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. The respondent-assessee is a resident-individual. The assessment year involved is 1975-76 and the valuation date shown is 31-3-1975.3. As regards ground No. 1, vide orders dated 29-5-1982 made by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' at New Delhi, in the case of Mrs. Dolly Nanda v. WTO [WT Appeal Nos. 590 to 597 (Delhi) of 1981], identical ground and issue stands decided in favour of the assessee. Again, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', had also occasion to discuss identically worded ground and an issue on appeal by the r...
Des Raj and Sons Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR519
Avadh Behari, J.(1) Avadh Behari J.-This is an appeal by a building contractor from the order of a learned single judge of this Court, dt. 22.1.80 The contractor did work for the respondent Union of India. Disputes arose between the parties. They were referred to an arbitrator. He gave his award. He made a non-speaking award. (2) The Union of India objected to the award on two grounds. Firstly they questioned the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award damages on account of suspension of work. A sum of Rs. 44,078.72 was awarded to the contractor on account of the fact that the work had been suspended by the Government during a certain period for no rhyme or reason. On this part of the award the learned Judge held that under clause 9 of the contract no claim was admissible for compensation due to suspension of work and the arbitrator had acted beyond his jurisdiction in awarding compensation for suspension. (3) The 2nd claim which the arbitrator allowed was for Rs. 8,073.25 against rise...
income-tax Officer Vs. Niranjan Singh Chaddha
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD835(Delhi)
1. The revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), cancelling the penalty of Rs. 18,460, levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessment year 1975-76.2. The ITO found, during the course of assessment, that the assessee had not shown income from plying of two trucks, namely, DHG 2180 and PNO 4955. Therefore, he did not accept the income returned at Rs. 24,700. He estimated the income from the plying of these two trucks at Rs. 34,300. In effect, he made an assessment at Rs. 82,015 by an order passed on 28-9-1978. Since there was a wide gulf between the income returned and the income assessed, he initiated the penalty proceedings and caused notice under Section 271(1)(c) to be served on the assessee.Not being satisfied, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who reduced the estimate of income derived from the truck plying to Rs. 24,260. The assessee took this matter further in appeal before the Tribunal. Th...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sobha Singh Jairam Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD1(Delhi)
1. The cross-appeals of the revenue and the assessee in respect of an order of the ITO under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the assessment year 1971-72 are conveniently considered together and disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee-HUF had claimed partition in respect of immovable properties with effect from 1-7-1970 as per the partition deed, dated 17-11-1970. Another claim of partition was made in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 out of capital which was accepted by the ITO and with which we are not concerned in these appeals. The claim of partition of immovable properties was rejected by the ITO in the first instance and the matter came up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order, dated 24-8-1977 directed a fresh enquiry to be made by the ITO mainly in respect of the property styled as Amritsar Cotton Mills (ACM) and set aside the order of the ITO. A fresh order has been passed after the order of the Tribunal with which we are concerned now. The I...
The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. I.D.i. Management Incorpo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi333; 26(1984)DLT149
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This arbitration has been a long drawn out affair. By a contract dated 12-2-1964 between the Fertilizer Corporation of India (the Corporation) and Girdler Corporation, later known as C.I. Girlder Inc. (the contractor), the contractor agreed to erect and instal a Methanol Plant at the Corporation's Trombay Division at Bombay of the description and on the terms set out in the said contract. The plant was supplied on a turn-key basis. It was to have a capacity to produce 100 metric tons of Methanoi per continuous day of 24 hours with either refinery gas or petroleum naptha as the feed stock. The contractor was to be paid 45 million rupees as the price of the plant. (2) Article Xiv of the said contract contained an arbitration clause which is as follows: 'All disputes and differences between the Contractor and the Corporation shall be referred to arbitration, each party appointing an Arbitrator, and the Two Arbitrators nominating an Umpire, as the first step bef...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Kamini Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi368; 1981RLR55
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) [PARTIES were married on 6.6.71. They have 4 daughters, born in 1972, 1975 & twins in 1976. They frequently quarrelled and the petitioner alleging that respondent had often been rude and mis-behaving with him and his parents sued for divorce on the ground of cruelty. His plea was that Respondent. falsely accused him of being a wonaniser and drunkard. Wife denied allegation of cruelty. About levelling charges of being a womeniser and drunkard, she tried to justify saying that the same was made bonafide.] After giving above in detail, judgment proceeds : (2) The allegations of crudities at Item Nos. I to Xv, Xvii, xviii and Xix above need not detain me long, because in the petition as also in the statement on oath made by the petitioner as Public Witness . 1 and his father as Public Witness . 2 various other persons have been named in whose presence these cruelties were allegedly committed. All those persons were cited as witnesses, but for reasons best known to the ...
Jaswant Lal Kuthiala Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: [1984]8ITD827(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri U. S. Dhusia, Judicial Member - The only issue raised in this appeal, filed by the assessed, is regarding his claim for expenditure of Rs. 12,543, incurred by the assessed during the accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 1977-78.2. The assessed had made a gross expenditure of Rs. 13,130 under different heads, as reproduced below :Rs.1.Salaries3,4462.traveling1,5783.Repairs3044.Bank charges285.Trade subscription1,0756.Postage717.Stationery and printing5008.Legal charges2009.General charges7810.Depreciation5,850The assessed, who returned an income of Rs. 1,00,240, derived income from dividend of shares, interest on securities, income from property and interest and shares from various firms. According to the assessed, these expenses were incurred for earning income derived from the aforesaid sources, particularly from business. The ITO turned down his plea for allowing these expenses against the income derived under different heads. He observed : I do not find any...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »