Delhi Court April 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Smt. Tejbir Kaur and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT119TriDel
1. A show cause notice under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of India on 7th October, 1982 wherein he asked the respondent to show cause why Order No. 315-316/82 dated 30-7-82 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs should not be set aside and Order No. 4 of 1982 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise on 2nd March, 1982 should not be restored.This matter was transferred to the Tribunal and is being dealt with as an app 2. The facts of the case are that Shri Narinder Singh gave an advertisement on 15-6-80 in the Hindustan Times and the Times of India offering for sale one airconditioner, one refrigerator, one even and a cooking range. According to the Revenue, the Customs had information that goods of foreign origin were being sold at the residential premises of the respondents. A search was undertaken and household and miscellaneous goods like airconditioners, refrigerators, cooking range, etc. were found an...
Shri Sat NaraIn and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC167Tri(Delhi)
1. These proceedings, in pursuance to a reference having been made to me by the President under Section 129(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, are being recorded in file of Appeal No. GC(DEL)(T) 1/80-NRB in view of the fact that the orders recorded separately by the two learned Members of the North Regional Bench have been put in the said file and so arc the points of difference drawn up by them. However, the discussion herein would cover all the five appeals captioned above.2. Facts giving rise to adjudication proceedings against these five appellants have been summarised in tabular form by the learned Judicial Member of the NRB, as then constituted, and I do not think, they require any reproduction. It would suffice for the purpose of having proper perspective of the points referred for third Member opinion, that one Bhagirath, a resident of Sri Ganga Nagar, appellant in Appeal No. 9/80 was intercepted while travelling in a bus on 4.3.1975 at about 10.30 a.m., near a place known as Daulat...
State Vs. R.L. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT333; 2003(7)DRJ334
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) Respondent R. L. Sharma was tried under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 here in after called Act. The trial court by its judgment dated 3rd February 1982 convicted and sentenced him to the payment of Rs. 500.00 and also directed that he should undergo two months simple imprisonment if he fails to pay the fine. The respondent went in appeal which was heard by Sh. K. B. Andley. Sessions Judge, Delhi, who by his judgment dated 13-7-1983 set aside the' conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. Leave to appeal against this judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge was sought and was granted on 18-11-1983 by this Court.(2) Staling briefly, the fa(3) On receipt of a complaint, Shri O. P. Bindra Inspecting Officer Delhi; for registering/licensing Officer, Delhi, went for the inspection of accused establishment on 5-8-76. After satisfying himself that the workers engaged by the,respondent were doing the same and s...
Kapri International (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: [1984]8ITD820(Delhi)
ORDERPer Dr. V. Balasubramanian, Vice President - The assessed has raised several grounds of appeal out of which except for two, the remaining grounds have been withdrawn as not pressed. The two points in dispute relater to the taxability of the premium received in respect of import entitlement and the grant of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, (the Act).2. The ground relating to import entitlement was raised by the assessed for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals). Nothing that the matter is one purely of the legal nature, the Commissioner (Appeals) admitted the claim but following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Agra Chain Mfg. Co. v. CIT : [1978]114ITR840(All) , decided the matter against the assessed. This point was against before use but we find that on account of the conflicting decisions by different Benches of the Tribunal, this matter has been referred to for decision to a Special Bench. It would not thereforee, be proper for us to adjudic...
Capital Dyeing Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT544TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved of the demand for central excise duty of Rs. 3,42,084 confirmed against them for the period 4-5-76 to 31-3-77. The demand relates to recovery of base stage duty on grey (i.e., plain or non-texturised) acrylic yarn and arose out of the peculiar wordings of Item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff and the exemption Notification No. 125/75-CE, dated 12-5-75. In order to facilitate the understanding of the issues involved in this appeal, we reproduce below the Tariff entry as well as the exemption notification as in force at the material time :-------------------------------------------------------------------Tariff Description of goods Rate of dutyItem No. Basic (i) Fibres and Yarn, other than Textured Yarn Rs. 85.00 per kg. (ii) Textured Yarn produced out of Base Yarn The duty for the time being leviable "(11) In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in supersession of Notification No. 105/75-CE, date...
Union of India Vs. Ishwar Dayal Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi271; ILR1984Delhi204
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the Punjab High Court as applicable to this Court, the appellant Union of India, seeks setting aside of the judgment passed on 7th April, 1983 by a learned Single Judge whereby the 'writ petition filed by Ishwar Dayal Jain an established exporter challenging the policy imposing prohibition on the export of peacock tail feathers was allowed. (2) The writ. petitioner's case briefly was that he was carrying on the business as an established exporter of peacock tail tea there for the last about 17 years under the name and style of M|s. Jain Traders at Sadar Bazar Delhi. The challenge in the writ petition was to a public notice bearing No. 32 ETC-PN| 80 issued on 27th June. 1980 whereby the export policy of peacock tail feathers and the articles made there from for the period April 1980 to March, 1981. had been declared by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce. The said notice reads as follows: Government...
Anar Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi298; 26(1984)DLT367; 1984RLR571
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Act') dated 24th October, 1961, the appeallant's land was acquired by the respondent. Union of India. The land was situated in village Jasola admeasuring 8 bighas bearing Khasra No. 18 min in which the appellant has got only half share, i.e., 4 bighas only, made the award (No. 14/74-75). He offered compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 4500 per bigha. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4500 to Rs. 4900 per bigha. He found that there was no material before him to determine the market value of the land. So he said : ''We have to be guided by oar own experience. The Land Acquisition Col-lector fixed the market value at Rs. 4500 per bigha. I think it should be Rs. 4900 per bigha and I assess it accordingly.' From his order dated 9-5-79 the appellant appeals to this court. (2) Village Jasola...
Glasfibro Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT541TriDel
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 Appellants are manufacturers of Fibre glass reinforced plastic (F.R.P.) corrugated and semi-corrugated roofing sheets. By a letter dated 9-7-1975, they had claimed exemption from duty in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971 on the aforesaid goods which till then were charged to duty as rigid plastic sheets under Item No. 15A(2)of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The Asstt.Collector by his letter dated 15-10-1975, acceded to the appellants' request on the ground that F.R.P. roofing sheets had got profile shapes and could not be re-shaped and were directly moulded from resins.However, on 30-1-1976, the Supdt. of Central Excise informed the appellants that the question of exemption ...
Meltron Semi-conductors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT117TriDel
1. This appeal relates to an importation of glass frit, along with other goods, by the appellants for the manufacture of specified electronic goods. Under notification No. 116/80-Cus. dated 19-6-1980, such goods are eligible to a concessional rate of duty when imported for the manufacture of the specified electronic goods. The notification includes a condition that the importer shall execute a bond binding himself to pay the difference between the concessional rate and the normal rate of duty on goods which are/not proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector to have been used for the specified purpose.2. The appellants did not claim the concession at the time of importation but paid the normal rate of duty. Thereafter they filed a claim for refund. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the ground that no bond in terms of the notification had been executed. On appeal, the Appellate Collector upheld the order of the Assistant Collector.3. Appearing before us for the ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Metal Forcing (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi215; [1984]149ITR259(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the department raises the following question for the opinion of the Court : 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessed was entitled to the carry forward of the development rebate claimed for the assessment year 1966-67 to be adjusted against the profits of the assessment year 1967-68 ?' (2) The facts briefly are these. The assessed is a private limited company which carries on the business of iron and steel forging. For the assessment year 1966-67 (accounting year ended April 30, 1965), it had claimed a development rebate of Rs. 15,121 but this was disallowed on the ground that the assessed had not created any development rebate reserve for the purpose. For this year, the assessed had suffered a net loss of Rs. 3,006 as per its books and the loss as finally assessed by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »