Delhi Court December 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 57 results (0.020 seconds)Hmm Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC740Tri(Delhi)
1. As observed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, in his order dated 14-10-1980 the point for determination in the present dispute is whether the stock of excisable goods manufactured by the appellant, M/s. HMM Ltd., before the enhanced rates of excise duty came into force, but cleared after such enhancement had taken effect, are liable to pay excise duty at the enhanced rate or at the old rate as prevailed on the date of manufacture.2. We have heard Shri A.C. Gulati, Advocate, for the appellants, and Shri K.C. Sachar, SDR, for the department.3. The argument of Shri Gulati is that for imposition of excise duty the chargeable event is manufacture and, therefore, it is the rate of duty that was in force on the date of manufacture that would be relevant for purposes of imposition as well as collection of excise duty. He in fact submitted that even if the rate of duty on the date of clearance is lesser than the rate of duty as was in force on the date of man...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Bhushan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ138
J.D. Jain, J. (1) Proceedings were started by Court on a news item that one Bharat Bhushan who had been arrested by the police had died in police custody. The petition was brought by amices curiae. The Advocate mentioned that it transpired after enquiry that Bharat Bhushan was arrested by the police on 28th November, 1984 and was taken to Police Post Chittaranjan Park. It was alleged that he was badly beaten up and when members of his family went to enquire about him they were shoved away and money was demanded from them. It was also mentioned that other persons also were kept in the police custody and release was made after taking bribe. It was also alleged that pressure was applied on the members of the family to give similar bribe for the release of Bharat Bhushan.(2) Notice was issued and an affidavit was filed by Bhupinder Kumar Rishi, SHO. The stand taken was that in the morning of 9th December. 1984 at 4.00 a.m. S.I., Prem Sineh Patwal. Respondent No. 7 was on patrol duty when h...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT508TriDel
1. In this case, by a notice dated 28-7-1981 under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Government of India sought to review the Order-in-Appeal No. 221/81, dated 12-2-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras in the appeal filed by M/s. Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited. This matter has since been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Act to be dealt with as an appeal. The issue related to the grant of rebate of duty on excess production of sugar under Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28-4-1978 in respect of sugar produced by the respondent during the period 1-5-1978 to 15-8-1978. Originally, the firm was allowed to avail of rebate of Rs. 10,64,281.96 as incentive rebate vide the order of the Assistant Collector dated 18-9-1978. It was subsequently found out that out of the excess production, the mill has exported 21,705 quintals of sugar under bond, without payment of duty. In terms of Notification No.108/78-C.E...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Lal Vs. Additional Assistant Controller
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)15ITD740(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Controller dated 12-12-1983.2. Smt. Laxmi Bai, who was the mother of the appellant, had died on 19-4-1977. The appellant being the son and legal representative of the deceased was assessed for payment of estate duty, being the person accountable. Smt. Laxmi Bai had 20 per cent share in a partnership firm running under the name and style of Super Fine Art Dyers, New Delhi.The Assistant Controller had computed the deceased's share of goodwill of the said firm at Rs. 2,20,312 on the basis of three years' purchase price of average profits. The assessee went up in appeal before the Appellate Controller, who reduced the said amount to Rs. 1,34,395 on the basis of two years' purchase price of average profits. Still aggrieved the assessee has come up in appeal before us.3. The initial contention of the appellant that there was no goodwill at all or that value of the goodwill was nil cannot be accepted. It appears that the said busi...
Tag this Judgment!K.D. Datwani Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)15ITD360(Delhi)
1. The Elhence, Shri K.D. Datwani held among others 100 shares in J.B.Exports (P.) Ltd. For the purpose of wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1978-79, in respect of which the previous year ended on 31-3-1978, the assessee valued the shares at Rs. 85,000 and filed a return showing the net wealth at Rs. 2,48,700. We are in this appeal concerned with the valuation of shares in J.B. Exports (P.) Ltd. These shares are not quoted on any recognised stock exchange. Originally a return was filed on 9-2-1979 wherein the value of these shares were shown at Rs. 2,74,000, which value was arrived at after working out the shares as per the provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules') which valuation gave the value per share at Rs. 274.Later a revised return was filed where the value of these shares were shown at Rs. 85,000, which was arrived at working out these shares on the basis of yield method. The WTO required the assessee as to why these shares should not be val...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT172
J.D. Jain, J. 1. Ashok Kumar and Ramesh Chand, petitioners were convicted of offences under Sections 387 and 507, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') by a Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 8th September 1983 and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for offence under Section 387 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months on the second count. However, the sentences of imprisonment on both the counts were directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, they were awarded further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentences but met with no success. The same was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 22nd November 1984 who maintained the conviction as well as sentences of both the petitioners for both the aforesaid offences. Hence, they have come up in revision against their conviction and sentences....
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector, Central Vs. Kakkar Complex Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC23
1. By this condonation of delay applications (133/85 and 134/85) the appellants pray for condonation of delay in filing Appeal Nos.1392/85-B and 1330/85-B. This order will dispose of the two applications.2. The two appeals are arising out of the same order-in-appeal dated 29th January, 1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. According to the Memo of Appeal and the applications for condonation of delay the order was communicated to the appellant on 27th February, 1985. Appeal was filed to the Tribunal on 30th May, 1986. Parties agreed that the date of communication would be excluded in computing limitation. In this view the appellant could have filed appeals till 27th May, 1985. The appeals thus filed on 30th May, 1985 are time-barred by 3 days.3. It might be stated that in the written reply to the application the respondents raised an objection that the date of communication, 27th February, 1985, shown in the Memo of Appeal was the date of communication of...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT397
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) Appellant Surinder Singh is the brother of the other two appellants. They were charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code aided with section 34 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to serve an imprisonment for life.(2) One Smt. Sumitra, daughter of Chandroop Singh Malik Public Witness 9 is the victim in this case. She was 16 years old and on 6-5-1981, just a few months before the date of incident, she was married to the appellant Surinder Singh. As the evidence of both the sides led in the case shows, there were acute difference between the couple and according to prosecution these differences arose because Surinder Singh appellant was aggrieved that the deceased's father had not given sufficient dowry on their marriage. He was allegedly demanding a T.V.set and Fridge. The differences seem to have widened as the deceased had kept all her jewellery including 20 tolas of gold which ware given to her by her in laws, at her father's house and despite persisten...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC175
1. The Government of India had issued on 12-1-1982, a show cause notice to the respondent M/s. Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for reviewing the Order-in-Appeal No. 574/81, dated 1-8-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The respondents were sanctioned rebate on excess production of sugar during the period 1-5-1978 to 15-8-1978 in terms of Notification No. 108/78-CE., dated 28-4-1978 at the rate of Rs. 54/- per quintal for free sale sugar and Rs. 9.60 per quintal for levy sugar. On a check of the factory records, the department found subsequently that the duty actually paid by the respondent was Rs. 3,90,200.34 as against the rebate of Rs. 5,36,216.76 paid which led to excess rebate paid amounting to Rs. 1,46,016.42. The Jurisdictional Assistant Collector issued a Show Cause Notice on 31-10-1980 for its recovery and on obtaining their defence, adjudicated their case by his order dated 5-3-198...
Tag this Judgment!Warden and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC66Tri(Delhi)
1. At the outest, when the matter is called, Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, the learned departmental representative, rises to submit that an issue similar to the one involved in the matter before us is before a Larger Bench in the case relating to Guardian Plasticote Ltd., Calcutta v.Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [Appeal No. ED (SB) T/174/ 80-C].He, therefore, contends that the decision in that matter should be awaited before proceeding in this case. Shri Sundar Rajan also states that the Issue regarding limitation is also the subject-matter of the proceedings before a separate Larger Bench and that for this reason also it is desirable to adjourn the matter until that decision also becomes available.2. Shri A. Hidayatullah, the learned senior advocate for the appellants has strongly opposed the adjournment. He has stated that he is not going to pursue the point of limitation and he would like the matter to be decided no merits. On merits, Shri Hidayatullah states, the issue before th...
Tag this Judgment!