Delhi Court July 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 62 results (0.044 seconds)Harawala Engineering Works Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC361Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point, calling for determination of this appeal, which was originally a revision petition before the Central Government, is as to whether the refund claim filed by the appellants has been rightly rejected by the lower authorities.2. The facts, as indicated in the order as well as the grounds of appeal are that the appellants are manufacturers of rough die cast rotor cages, which are used for making rotors for electric motors. The appellants asserted that since these rotor cages manufactured by them could not be used directly in the rotor and were semifinished articles, they were not liable to pay excise duty under tariff Item 30(4) of the Central Excise Tariff (CET for short). However, the Department does not seem to have agreed with their contention and they started paying duty as demanded, under protest, with effect from 1972.3. The dispute was eventually settled by an order passed in March 1975 by the then Collector of Central Excise, Bombay upholding the contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Upvan International Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)15ITD215(Delhi)
1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and the department aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he directed certain reliefs and confirmed certain additions made by the ITO. In the assessee's appeal the basic objection taken to was to an addition of Rs. 90,000 maintained by the Commissioner (Appeals) and also to the rejection of allowance of weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of certain items. In the departmental appeal the objection is taken to certain reliefs granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) which we will come to a little later.2. We shall first take up the assessee's appeal. The relevant facts relating to the addition of Rs. 90,000 are: The assessee as is seen from the records is a manufacturer of various garments for export. The total turnover as seen from the assessment order is of the order of Rs. 99.42 lakhs. The accounts maintained by the assessee show, inter alia, that it paid a total sum...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ253
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Panna Lal, a detenu under the National Security Act, 1980, has challenged the legality of the order passed on 19th December, 1984, by Shri S.S. Jog, Commissioner of Police, Delhi, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The order was passed by the said Commissioner of being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (2) The petitioner was detained on 20th December, 1984, in pursuance of the detention order. He was supplied with the grounds of detention on 23rd December, 1984. (3) In the petition various grounds have been raised. However, in the view which we are taking it is not necessary to deal with each of them as we are of the opinion that none of the grounds of detention is connected with maintenance of public order. (4) It is stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is an active had character of ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Siya Ram Bros.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD883(Delhi)
1. The revenue in the present appeal challenges the first appellate order dated 14-7-1983 of the learned AAC for the assessment year 1975-76 on the following ground : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AAC was not justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. As the assessee's income exceeded by more than 33 1/3 per cent of the tax demanded under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), penalty proceedings under Section 273(c) of the Act were initiated during the course of assessment proceedings on 28-3-1978. The assessee, for the reasons known to itself, did not participate in the penalty proceedings despite the opportunity afforded. No explanation was, therefore, offered regarding the proceedings. The learned ITO in these circumstances considered that the assessee had committed a default and had no explanation for the same. Thus, the penalty of Rs. 20,000 was imposed vide order dated 31-3-1980,...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Ram Vaikuntha Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)15ITD1(Delhi)
1. The question raised in this appeal, filed by the assessee, relates to the correctness of the order of the learned Commissioner, Delhi, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). For the assessment year 1982-83, in question, he took the view that exemption to the assessee under Section 11 of the Act should have been denied by the ITO since it had contravened to the provisions of Section 13(2)(6)of the Act.2. The assessee Shree Ram Vaikuntha Trust is a public charitable trust which was constituted under a deed dated 1-4-1969. It stands registered under Section 12A(a) of the Act. The ITO granted to the assessee-trust, exemption for the assessment year 1982-83 in question under Section 11 on the basis that the facts were the same as mentioned in the earlier years. Assessment was completed accordingly. On 9-9-1970, the assessee-trust received by donation an old two storeyed bungalow (tiled sheds described as servants quarters, garrage and kitchen, etc.), at Race Course R...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Vohra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT496; 1985(9)DRJ200; 1986RLR33
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal writs Nos. 47, 84, 103, 104 and Iii of 1985 as in all these petitions detentions have beer challenged on a common ground relating to the interpretation oF Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (here-in-after called 'the Act'). In Fact, arguments were addressed only in Criminal Writ No. 84 of 1985 and the legal submission. made were adopted in all other petitions. In the circumstances, it will be sufficient to narrate briefly the facts in criminal writ No. 84 of 1985. (2) The petitioner, Vishwa Nath Vohra, was detained by virtue of an order passed on 16th November, 1984 by the administration of Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and also preventing him from abetting the smuggling of foreign currency out...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)15ITD58(Delhi)
ORDER--Non-consideration of seized material and following the decision of higher authority.An order of assessing officer could not be said erroneous and prejudicial where he followed the decision of Settlement Commission which was made in his presence and after considering seized materials.In this case what happened was that as soon as the assessee made a petition to the Commissioner for settlement, the Commissioner held several meetings with the Income Tax Officer. The assessee filed explanation to the various additions proposed in the order under section 132(5) supported by materials. This explanation was sent to the Income Tax Officer for his comments. It was only after getting the explanations offered by the assessee examined by the Income Tax Officer and it is only after receiving his comments on them and that too through the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that the final settlement was reached.The Income Tax Officer was also present and a party to this settlement.It cannot, the...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Kasturi Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT1; 1986(10)DRJ164; 1986LabIC728
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Kasturi Lal, the respondent was appointed by the Northern Railways as Points man on December 26, 1953. He was promoted as Shunts man and confirmed to that post in 1959. He was, thereafter posted as Luggage Porter Jamadar.(2) On March 15, 1972 a police party saw him removing a bushirt from a package lying in a wagon standing on the railway platform. He was arrested. On search he was found waring pants over his own pants. That pants were also taken into possession. Investigations revealed that the bushirt and the pants were part of the Railway Property booked with the railways for carriage. He was prosecuted and convicted for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1956 on November 25, 1975. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, however, released him on probation on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety in the amount of Rs. 2000.00 for a period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior.(3) The Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. Vs. Murari Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ310
D.K. Kapoor, J.(1) This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi directed against the judgment in Cw 1360/79 decided by a learned single Judge of the 'is Court on 7th May, 1984. The said case was decided along with C.W. No 613/81 by a common judgment. We have also heard the two appeals, LPA-93/M M. C. D. v. .Murari Lal and Lpa -84/84 Mcd v. Roomal Singh, together, but as there is a difference in the facts' we have to give separate judgments. (2) The difference may be stressed now. In Roomal Singh's case, the M.C.D. as respondent was unable to produce either the file or the letter of appointment or any other document to show that Roomal Singh had been appointed by an authority other than the Commissioner of the Corporation. So, the case was decided on the basis that the order removing Roomal Singh rom service could not be passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, the Commissioner. (3) In Murari Lal's case the difference is that there are some documents on...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2147Tri(Delhi)
1. respondents are primarily engaged in theanufacture of mineral fibres Appeal allowedd yarn. One of the components of their machinery, namely, platinum/rhodium bushings, gets worn out in course of use and requires to be remade. The department has permitted them to remake them with the help of a secondary manufacturer at Calcutta in terms of the special procedure laid down in rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The short point that falls for decision in this case is whether the respondents are entitled to take the remade bushings into use in their factory free of duty under Rule 56C(2) or, in the alternative, under exemption Notification No. 118/75-CE dated 30-4-1975.2. Before commencing discussion on the point of dispute, it would be helpful to notice the relevant portion of the rule as well as the exemption notification : "56C. Special procedure for the movement of finished goods falling under Item No. 68 without payment of duty. (2) The finished goods brought by a primary m...
Tag this Judgment!