Delhi Court October 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 57 results (0.033 seconds)V.M.T. Fibreglass Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC638Tri(Delhi)
1. This matter arises out of a Revision Application under Sectoin 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the Order-in-Appeal No.1136/Cal/1981, dated 11th August, 1981, passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta. On the constiuttion of the Tribunal, this has been transferred here and is now being treated as an Appeal before us.2. None appears on behalf of the appellants, who, in their written submissions, have stated that their's is a small concern and that it is too much for them to bear the expenses involved in attending the hearing at New Delhi. While they were trying their best to be personally represented on the due date, they pray that, if they fail to appear, the appeal may be decided on the basis of their written submissions.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in a classification list filed by the appellants on 18th March, 1976 (effective from 16th March, 1976), it was claimed that their product, declared "FRP Translucent Sheets (corrugate...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.P. Veneer and Plywood (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC198Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents are manufacturers of wooden veneers and plywood. In the course of such manufacture, they saw wooden logs into slabs.Certain portions of the sawn timber which contain knots, flowery grains, crackes etc. and hence are not suitable for manufacture of veneers, are taken out and cleared from the factory as timber waste.Relying on the order No. 488 of 1981 dated 30-6-1981 of the Government of India passed in revision, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that since the timber retained the characteristics as timber when cleared as waste, no manufacture was involved and hence the timber waste did not attract levy of central excise duty. The case of the department in favour of their appeal filed against this order of the Collector (Appeals) is that the so-called timber waste is not really a waste as it is usable for manufacture of wooden furniture. On that plea, the department wants us to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal.2. The learned advocate present at the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sequoia Construction (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD348(Delhi)
Where the original order got merged with reassessment order, the original order could not be revised by Commissioner under section 263.The reassessment gives the power to the Income Tax Officer to reopen every item of escaped assessment. Under these circumstances, the original assessment merges with the final assessment. Therefore, the Commissioner had no powers to modify the assessment under section 263.Vijayalakashmi Lorry Service v. Addl. CIT ITRC No. 37 of of 1973 dt.17-9-1975 affirmed in W.P. No. No. 72/81 dt. 26-10-1984 and Mysore Iron & Steel Co. Ltd's. case ITRC No. 171 of 1980 dt. 26-10-1984 followed.1. By the instant reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') the Commissioner, requires us to refer the following two questions said to be of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 25-11-1983 in IT Appeal No. 3913 (Delhi) of 1982 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Ram Kishore Ram Gopal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD355(Delhi)
1. This departmental appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1974-75. The grounds raised by the department relate to the treatment of balance in the purchase tax account and such questions have been raising between the department and the assessee in large number of cases. The circumstances in which the problem has arisen are as under : 2. The assessee-firm is a commission agent of foodgrains and does its own trading also. The ITO found that in various accounts pertaining to purchase tax there were total credits to the extent of Rs. 1,88,912.After certain adjustments the net credit was shown at Rs. 1,84,335.There is no dispute about this figure. The ITO further found that after considering the payments made relating to the current year's liability in the accounting period as after the close of the year, there was a surplus of Rs. 74,180 in the purchase tax account. According to the ITO, this surplus was to be included as the as...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Chopra Vs. Dharam Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ35
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the tenant-appellant challenges the legality of the judgment passed on 24th January, 1985, by the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') setting aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller (herein called 'the Controller') passed under section 15(1) of the Act. The Controller bad directed that without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties, the tenant would deposit the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 350.00 per month with effect from 1st March, 1983. The Tribunal, however, calculated the rent at the rate of Rs. 650.00 per month and directed its deposit at that rate. (2) To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties a Few facts may be noticed. The landlord-respondent herein Shri D.C. Jain, filed a petition under section 14(1)(a) of the Act seeking a decree of eviction against the tenant-appellant herein, ...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Lal Sehgal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1857
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner Darshan Lal Sehgal has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dt. 25th April 1985 passed against him by Shri K. K. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of the foreign exchange.2. The Enforcement Directorate received secret information that the petitioner was indulging in unauthorised sale and purchase of foreign exchange at a large scale under the cover of having money changer license at village Mehram Nagar, opposite Palam Airport, New Delhi. The information further was that the petitioner was buying foreign exchange from various passengers and porters at the Airport and selling the same on a premium to different p...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC212Tri(Delhi)
1. The present proceedings were initiated by Government of India by means of a Review Notice, dated nil, in exercise of the power under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it then existed. The said notice stood transferred "to the Tribunal under Section 35P(2) of the Act to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before it. The Review Notice is, accordingly, being disposed of as an appeal filed by the Central Government. The date of the notice, according to the reply of the respondent herein dated 22-12-1980, is 6-9-1980.3. The respondents are a Government Company manufacturing earth moving machinery and vehicles including Haulpak Rear Dump and Tractor Rear Dump. The Superintendent issued a demand on 7-8-69 covering 56 Rear Dump and 15 LW 35 Haulpak for duty amounting to Rs. 72,42,685.91. On this an adjudication was made and the Deputy Collector confirmed the demand. The respondents challenged the order before the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition 813 ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwant Singh and anr. Vs. Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ38
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision has been filed by Bhagwant Singh and Harbel Singh, defendant Nos. 2 and 3, while another revision (Civil Revision No. 457 of 1985) has been filed by Krishan Lal, defendant No. 1. Both the revisions challenge the judgment and order dated 1st December, 1984 of the lower appellate court confirming the order of the trial court dated 14th November, 1983 restraining the defendants from forcibly and wrongfully dispossessing the plaintiff from almirah like shop and also from demolishing the front wall in which the said almirah is embedded till the disposal of the suit. (2) Briefly these are the facts ; Mohan Lal, plaintiff/respondent No. I, on 6th April, 1983 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing him from the almirah shop and from demolishing the wall on which the me is fixed. The plaintiff has alleged that he is a tenant in a shop forming part of 89, Ghaffar Market, New Delhi, delineated in the site plan annexed with...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Dayal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ383; 1986(1)Crimes3; 1986(10)DRJ147
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) The appellant Prabhu Dayal has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, he has come in appeal.(2) Prabhu Dayal was married to the deceased Smt. Sarita Gupta in 1975. Sarita gave birth to three children, two daughters and a son. The daughters were, at the time of the occurrence, aged 6 and 4 and the son was 8 or 9 months old. The couple resided on the second floor of D-II, Naraina Vihar. The apartment in occupation of the couple was a single room with bath, latrine and a terrace. The living room was also used as a kitchen.(3) On 20th December 1982 at 11.45 a.m. Prabhu Dayal went to the police station Naraina and gave information that that day at about 1115 a m. his wife Sarita Gupta, aged 28 years, who was mentally retarded has set herself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person and that he has come to report the matter. (4) The ...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes13; 29(1986)DLT323
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) -THIS appeal is directed against an order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 15th April 1982 convicting the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. (2) We may first of all take notice of the facts. The date of incident is 17th April 1981 at 11.30 P.M. The accused in the case is the husband of the deceased, one Meena who bailed from Agra and was married to the accused about 4 years prior to the date of the incident. The place of incident. The place of incident is house No. 16/134, Bhapa Nagar, Karol Bagh.New Delhi. The deceased along with her husband, the present appellant was residing in this house for some time back. The alleged motive for the commission of the crime is that the deceased Meena was suspecting the appellant of having an affair with some other lady and was aggrieved of the behavior of the appellant as he was unfaithful to her. Yet another motive to do away with the dece...
Tag this Judgment!