Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 93 results (0.022 seconds)B. Rajendra Oil Mills and Refinery Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT607TriDel
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. B. Rajendra Oil Mills & Refinery (hereinafter called the appellants are the manufacturers of vegetable oils. During the period April 1966 to April, 1977, they paid a sum of Rs. 22,544.22 as cess levied and collected under this Act. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 16,348.20 related to Castor oil for which they filed a refund claim on the ground that Section 6 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 provides that when oil is exported refund will be granted. During this period they had sold the castor oil through Commission Agents and exported by the shippers and, therefore, they arc entitled to the refund of the cess duty paid on this exported oil. The Assistant Collector (Refunds) before whom the refund claim was filed, rejected the said refund claim by his Order dated 16-11-1973. The appeal before the Appellat Collector of Central Excises, Madras was also rejected vide his order dated 5-8-1974.2. Being aggrieved by the said Order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram S. Dasta Vs. Gopal Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT249
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This second appeal filed on behalf of the tenant is directed against the order of learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 25th April, 1984 confirming the order dated 22nd February, 1984 passed by 7th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi accepting the application of the respondent Smt. Gopal Devi, .landlady, for delivery of possession of the premises in dispute to the landlady which had initially been let out to the appellant, herein, under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) It appears that the first floor of premises bearing No. B-7, Co-operative Housing Society, N.D.S.E. Part I, New Delhi was let out to the appellant in pursuance of a permission granted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 25th October, 1977. (3) The application for permission to let out the aforesaid premises was filed on or about 24th October, 1977. In this application, it was stated by Mrs. Gopal Devi, the landlady, that she is o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Ram Memorial Foundation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Del)170; [1986]158ITR3(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a reference to this court concerning the question whether the sum of Rs. 1,59,959 expended by the assessed was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It may be mentioned that the assessed in this case is a charitable institution registered by the Commissioner under section 80G. It also appears that the object of the trust was to commemorate the services rendered by Sir Shri Ram to industry and it was entitled to apply donations and collections for charitable purposes including relief of the poor, education, research, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. One of the particular objects mentioned was to prepare and publish biographical and other research studies. In the course of its activity, the assessed was expending money for getting a biography of Sir Shri Ram prepared. In this particular year, the expenditure in this c...
Tag this Judgment!Tarseen Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1985)ACC319; 1985(1)Crimes948; 27(1985)DLT319; 1985(8)DRJ216
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner was given notice of the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code by Mr. A.S. Dateer, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, and the grievance of the petitioner is that on the facts of the case the learned Magistrate has patently erred in issuing the notice as on the bare reading of the facts of the case it cannot be said that any rash or negligent act of the petitioner was responsible for the death of the deceased; and that there is no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the rash or negligent act attributed to the accused.(2) In order to appreciate the point at issue, facts of the case may briefly be reproduced. On 8th February 1980 one Shri Ranjit Singh who was at the relevant time working as Head Master Primari School, Barola, Panchwati, Delhi lodged a report at police station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi staling therein that after the morning prayers were held in the school which finished at 9 A.M. and the-children were returning to the...
Tag this Judgment!James Francis Dillon and ors. Vs. Holy Cross Social Service Centre
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi564
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is a petition under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980. The petition contains various averments regarding the petitioners' who seek to be appointed as joint guardians and so also of the minor girl. It is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the case. When the petition came before me for admission, though I directed issue of notice to the Indian Council of Child Welfare and also directed issue of citation in the daily 'Statesman' I was not certain about the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition. Arguments were, thereforee, addressed by Mr. J. Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners (2) Under Section 4(5) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, 'the Court' means . . . . the District Court having jurisdiction to entertain an application under this Act for an order appointing or declaring a parrents to be a 'guardian' and the District Court has been defined in Section 4 Sub-section 4 of this Act and it has the ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian National theatre Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD588(Delhi)
1. The assessee in this appeal, Indian National Theatre Trust, New Delhi, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) declining to grant exemption to its income under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a trust created on 15-2-1958 by the Indian National Theatre, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, through Smt. Sheila Bharat Ram and Smt. Vidya Shah. The objects of the trust are : (1) to promote artistic and cultural expression through drama, music, conferences and cognate activities, (2) to purchase or acquire on lease, any real or personal or movable or immovable property and other assets, (3) to undertake all activities that may be conducive to the aforesaid objects and purposes. The trustees of the trust were late Shri T.T. Krishnamachari, Shri Bharat Ram, Shri G.L. Bansal, Smt. Sucheta Kripalani and Shri K.K. Birla. The preamble of the trust deed provided the circumstances under which this trust came...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Bhagi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(2)Crimes1046; 27(1985)DLT285
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) On 14th January 1985 this petition was listed at No. 6. Earlier when this petition came to be admitted the court also had directed early hearing. Obviously, it was done at the request of the counsel for the petitioner. On 15th January 1985, the petition was listed at No. I but since the petitioner's counsel failed to turn up it was again listed. Unfortunately, even today, neither the petitioner nor his counsel has appeared. In these circumstances I have heard Mr. Makhija, counsel for Delhi Development Act. (2) The controversy in this petition falls within a very narrow compass in as much as the grievance of the petitioner is that he was earlier also prosecuted on the basis of the same set of facts and under the same Act for the same offences in respect of the same premises before Shri M.L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, which case was dismissed and in which case he was acquitted on 26-8-1982. The respondent however, initiated fresh prosecution agains...
Tag this Judgment!inderjit Singh Bawa Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT122TriDel
1. As common questions of fact and law are involved in Appeal Nos.CD(SB) A. No. 379/84-A, 357/84-A, 2176/83-A & 52/84-A, they will be disposed of by this common order.2. In each of the appeals, the appellants imported a car of the make and model Toyota Corona 1600 DLX Sedan and presented a manufacturer's invoice at the time of assessment. The manufacturer's invoice was accepted and valuation was done after adding the freight and insurance to the FOB value stated in the invoice. The appellants challenged the valuation and claimed that 15% discount on the manufacturer's invoice should have been allowed to them. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector.3. They filed appeals before the Collector and argued that the Customs should either allow 15% discount on manufacturer's invoice or valuation should be done on the basis of price list after allowing 15% trade discount and not on the basis of invoice price plus freight etc. They also claimed that Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. the Atuo Products Ltd. and the Atic
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT147TriDel
1. These two matters arose from notice F. No. 380/126/81-Cus. II, dated 28-10-81 issued to M/s. Atic Industries Limited and F. No.380/70/81-Cus. II, dated 18-9-81 issued by the Government of India under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, issued to M/s. Atul Products Limited, to show cause why the Order-in-Appeal No.S/49-2117/80-R dated 29-12-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay against Order No. C/6-C-913/78-R dated 21-7-80 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refunds, Bombay and Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-1406/78R dated 30-11-78 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay against Order No. S/6-C-3422/77R dated 11-5-78 of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section, Bombay, should not be set aside and the Assistant Collector's order restored, etc. etc.2. The dispute is the assessment of naphthalene imported by M/s Atul Products Limited and M/s. Atic Industries Limited. The Assistant Collector ordered assessment of the goods under headi...
Tag this Judgment!Veekayan Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT596TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the rejection of their appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, in his order dated 1-11-83, the appellants have preferred this appeal before us.2. The appellants have a small scale unit and are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of nuts and bolts falling under T.I. 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Inspector, Central Excise, Pathankot visited the factory on 19-11-81 and asked the appellants to furnish figures of sale from the factory during 1980-81. The appellants submitted the figures which included the following items :-Bright bars and Bright Rs. 3,18,194.96bar scrap.Rivets Rs. 2,26,183.70CI Castings Rs. 2,42,016.25Washers Rs. 8,927.38Scrap Rs. 65,239.40Nuts and Bolts Rs. 14,63,686.87 -------------------- 3. On 15-12-81 a show cause notice was issued on the ground that the appellants have cleared goods for the period 19-6-81 to 15-7-81 without payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,05,055.32 and that they had claimed the exemption under...
Tag this Judgment!