Delhi Court February 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dwarka Prasad Lulla Vs. Collector of Customs (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC253Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. APPL/DLH/Raj/164/80 (Order No. 145-RAJ/83) dated 21-3-1983, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, confirming the Order No. 33/50 dated 3-10-1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Ajmer, arises in the following circumstances.2. On information, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise & Customs, Ajmer, searched the residential premises of the appellant on 28-1-1980 and seized the miscellaneous goods valued at Rs. 3,675/- and clothes & hosiery goods valued at Rs. 4,874/- alleged to be of foreign origin.Consequently, a show cause notice dated 4-3-1980 was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause and explain as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and why further penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112, ibid for alleged contravention of Sections 11-C, 11-D and 11-E of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Clause 3 of Imp...
Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC1044Tri(Delhi)
1. An appeal was filed on behalf of M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Private Ltd. against Order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, No. 71-B of 1980 dated 25-1-1980. This order of the Board was issued on an appeal against order No. 81/33/72 Collr-49/76 dated 24-4-1976 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The dispute is in regard to manufacture of goods which the Central Excise Department called electric industrial fans assessable under Central Excise Tariff Item 33(2), and which the factory calls blade assemblies and which it says were not assessable under Tariff Item 33 (2). The appeal was once posted for hearing on 1st November, 1985, but as the counsel for M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers insisted that he should be allowed to file a large number of additional documents and grounds such as an affidavit by an engineer by the name of Mr. Kundu, the hearing could not be completed and had to be postponed pending a decision on the additional documents. None of ...
The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC343Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point in dispute in this case is whether extra hardened rice bran oil continues to remain a vegetable oil classifiable under Item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff or it ceases to be so and becomes a different product classifiable under the residuary item 68 of the tariff.2. Before we start the discussion, a word about the nature of the product would be helpful. Rice bran oil is extracted out of rice bran by solvent extraction method. After such extraction, rice bran oil obtained is in a liquid form. The appellants purchase rice bran oil from the market and process it. The process is reported to be as follows. The oil is heated to above 80C and the impurities are removed by adding oxalic acid and caustic lye. The purified oil is then bleached by heating it to 85C to 100C and then by treating with fullers earth. The processed oil is then hardened by passing it through hydrogen gas. During hydrogenation, the oil absorbs two atoms of hydrogen and the unsaturated Fatty Acid pre...
Madhusudan Malani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(24)ELT422TriDel
1. Both the captioned appeals arise out of a common order-in-appeal No.6, 7-RAJ/Gold/83 dated 30-11-1983, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, confirming the order-in-original No. 10(Gold)/80 dated 30-6-1980 passed by the Deputy Collector Jaipur Since both the captioned anneals arise out of the Common order-in-appeal and issues involved in both the appeals are the same, they were heard together and are, hereby, disposed of by this common order.2. Brief facts of the case, so far as relevant for the purpose of these appeals, are (hat on 24-9-1979. officers of the Narcotics Department, during the course of their routine 'Nakabandi at Chag Gate, Beawar, searched the appellant Shri Madhdsudan, who had alighted from a bus coming from Bhilwara, and detected five bangles of gold duly wrapped in silken printed piece of cloth and concealed below the Pant under belt.Besides, a piece of paper with address of Shri Ramji Dass Modi and three bus-tickets, bearing different numbers...
Jamna Dass Ram Parkash Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC235Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 28/CH/Gold/83 dated 21-10-1983, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, upholding Order No. 4/Gold/80 dated 24-9-1980 passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh. The respondent has also filed his cross-objection. This order will dispose of the appeal as well as the cross-objection.2. Brief facts of the case are that on information, the Hqrs.Preventive staff of Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, visited the business premises of the appellant firm, a Licensed Gold Dealer, on 3-11-1979 and found one tin-box containing 73 pieces of gold ornaments weighing 437.300 gms unaccounted for. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, in reply to which, the appellant inter alia stated that 2 (two) Karas, mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 & 7 of the Panchnama, belonged to the domestic jewellery and test of the ornaments belonged to four different customers, who had given them for minor repair and washin...
Sheo Prasad Singhal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD167(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1981-82. The facts of the case, in brief are as under : 2. The assessee is a contractor. Sometimes in August 1959, he obtained a contract for construction of an irrigation project in Rajasthan.According to the assessee, the execution of this contract was completed in or about May 1963 and the past payment of Rs. 1,032.56 was received by the assessee on 11-5-1964. In January 1965, the assessee sent a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Sections 8 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act to the said State of Rajasthan, claiming that a sum of Rs. 1,20,130.50 was still due to him in respect of the aforesaid contract and that this amount together with interest of Rs. 11,820.30 should be paid to him or in the alternative the matter should be referred for arbitration. Thereafter, the matter was referred to an arbitrator who by his award dated 27-6-1972, held as under : 1. The defendant, the Sta...
Mrs. Asha M. Primlani Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD471(Delhi)
1.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner made under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on 26-3-1984 relating to the assessment year 1979-80.2. At the time of hearing before us, the parties agreed that the first ground taken up in appeal, which is legal in character, may be decided first after hearing the parties and it is only thereafter, that the other issues, if necessary, be considered. The first ground in the appeal is that the order passed by the Commissioner was outside the scope of Section 263, as he had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the IAC under Section 263 and as such, the impugned order is null and void. On this issue, we have heard both the sides. The assessee relied upon the Special Bench judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1985] SOT 295 (Hyd.) and Bela Singh Pabla v. ITO [1982] 1 ITD 370 (Delhi). Basing his contentions on these judgments, the learned counse...
income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Sharda Seshadri
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD615(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue before us, is with a grievance that the learned AAC, New Delhi, erred in holding, in his order dated 9-12-1983, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 49(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were applicable to the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81 and as such the capital gains of Rs. 91,723 worked out by the ITO and included in the total income of the assessee on sale of jewellery disposed of by the assessee during the year under appeal were not taxable.2. We have heard the parties in extenso on this issue. In order to appreciate their respective grievances we first record the facts which are relevant for the determination of the issue before us and which are not in dispute. The assessee, Smt. Sharda Seshadri, is the wife of Shri P. Rama Seshadri. Shri P. Rama Seshadri had a brother named Shri P.V.Acharya. In other words Shri Rama Seshadri and Shri P.V. Acharya were full blooded real ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bharat Electrical Equipment Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC106(Delhi)
T.P.S. Chawla, J.1. M/s. Bharat Electrical Equipment Corporation was a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of cable boxes and electrical goods. Their business premises were originally situated at Darya Ganj, but, subsequently, they shifted to Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. They were registered as a 'dealer' both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, and, also, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the 'local' and the 'Central' Act). 2. For the financial year 1967-68, the firm filed returns under the local Act for the first, second and the third quarters. No returns was filed for the fourth quarter. Returns for all the four quarters were filed under the Central Act. Proceedings for assessment both under the local and Central Act were commenced towards the end of 1968. Despite service of notice in form ST XIV, no one appeared on behalf of the firm before the Sales Tax Officer. The case was repeatedly adjourned ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi Vs. Benson Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi430; [1986]62STC348(Delhi)
Chawla, J.1. M/s. Benson Industries was a firm which carried on the business of selling electrical goods in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. They were registered as a 'dealer' under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extends to the Union Territory of Delhi, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the 'local' and the 'Central' Act). 2. For the financial year 1968-69 proceedings for assessment were commenced, both under the local and the Central Act, by serving notices on the firm in form S.T. XIV requiring them to attend before the Sales Tax Officer on 20th January, 1970. No one appeared on behalf of the firm before the Sales Tax Officer on the appointed date. For almost three years thereafter, dates were fixed and notices to attend were sent to the firm, but still no one appeared on their behalf. Ultimately, on 19th December, 1972, the Sales Tax Officer proceeded ex parte, and made two orders of assessment : one under the local and the other under the Central Act. Additional dem...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »