Delhi Court April 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pulling and Lifting Machines (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: (1988)LC436Tri(Delhi)
1. This application moved by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-I, Ghaziabad, had been made with a prayer for vacating an order of stay passed by a Bench of this Tribunal on 15-1-1985, vide order No. 33/1985-A. Shri P.K. Ajwani, SDR has appeared in support of this application. On being asked as to under what provisions of the Act such an application could be moved, as in view of the Bench, this is tantamount to a prayer for review of the earlier order, passed by a Bench, Shri Ajwani, SDR replies that the order is erroneous inasmuch as it has been passed ignoring judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise of Chandan Nagar v.Dunlop India Limited and Ors. He further says that after the Bench has observed that there is no undue hardship to allow waiver of entire amount of duty, and as such the order dispensing with condition of pre-deposit of the penalty amount, and securing half of the duty amount by Bank Guarantee was not j...
Electrical Products Corpn. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT70TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta who has confirmed the demand raised against the appellants for short levy of duty and has also levied personal penalty on the appellants. The appellants filed a price list in respect of exhaust fans and air circulators and claimed an abatement of discount of 27.8% and 20% from the wholesale trade price. The appellants were, however, found to have not allowed this discount uniformly to all the buyers and ranged between 15% and that mentioned in the price list. The Collector allowed an abatement of 15%, the minimum discounts which had been given to all the buyers uniformly. The demand raised was for the period April 1980 to March 1982. The appellants were charged with misdeclaration in respect of the abatement of discount claimed in the price list and duty demand was made under Rule 9(2) under Section 11A of the Act and the provisions of Rule 173Q were also invoked. The appellants as is seen from t...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Banwari Lal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ263
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This regular second appeal seeks the reversal of the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and restraining the defendant who is appellant before me, from recovering the amount of Rs. 13564.50 towards property taxies from the plaintiff.(2) One of the issues framed by the trial Court is whether the defendant fixed the rateable value of the property in question at Rs. 23.500.00 after giving notice inviting objections from the proper person. According to the plaintiff, he was the person primarily liable for the payment of property taxes in respect of the property in dispute and the defendant was duly informed regarding the purchase of the right in the property by the plaintiff. The plea is that the plaintiff was not served with any notice for enhancement of the rateable value and, thereforee, the impugned demand of the defendant is illegal and unenforceable. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the rateable value of the ...
B.S. Jewellers Vs. Additional Collector of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT451TriDel
1. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 20th November, 1981, the Customs Preventive staff at Jaipur, reportedly on the basis of some secret information, conducted search of business-cum-residential premises of one Shri Bundu Khan, partner of M/s. B.S. Jewellers, Jaipur. As a result of the search, the Customs recovered some rough, rejected, cut and polished semi-precious stones described as Tourquoise and Tourquoise Dyed and Glued. On demand Shri Bundu Khan and his partner Mohd. Shaffie produced certain records and documents maintained by them which showed that they were engaged in the purchase, cutting, polishing and selling of Tourquoise and that they had certain quantity of Tourquoise in stock. The Customs checked the quantities of Tourquoise with the account and those that were found in excess of the book balance, were reportedly got appraised from the Customs Appraiser, who found that they were of West German origin. The Department's case is that since the party could not pro...
Jayashree Timber Products Vs. Collector of Customs and Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1986
Reported in: (1988)LC192Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Jayashree Timber Products has filed an appeal being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. 868/Cal/82 dated 21-9-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. Shri D.N. Mehta, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He has argued that there is denial of principles of natural justice. He has filed a photostat copy of the appeal petition filed before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and has also supplied the copy of the same to the learned departmental representative, Shri D.K. Saha.Shri Mehta, the learned Advocate has referred to prayer C which appears on page 5 of the Memorandum of Appeal and has pleaded that it reads as "a personal hearing be granted before this appeal is otherwise disposed of". Shri Mehta, the learned Advocate has pleaded that even if the appeal was hit by limitation, it was obligatory for the Collector of Central Excise to grant a personal hearing. In support of his contention, he has sited a judgme...
Shriram Refrigeration Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC192Tri(Delhi)
1. As common questions of fact and law are involved in both these appeals, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order. These are revision applications filed before the Government of India which on transfer to this Tribunal are being treated as appeals.2. A brief narration of the facts leading to the appeals is necessary for purpose of understanding the controversy.3. The appellants carry on business of manufacture of compressors, water coolers, etc. There is no dispute regarding new compressors manufactured by them at their factory. The dispute now is with regard to the compressors received for repairs and cleared after repairs and/or re-making. A show cause notice was issued on 22-2-1977 alleging that during the period 1-4-1974 to 31-12-1976 the appellants received 29,494 compressors in their factory for repairs which were freshly manufactured and were cleared without payment of central excise duty amounting to about Rs. 3 crores. The appellants raised var...
Maneesh Kumar (Minor) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD339(Delhi)
1. Facts briefly stated are that penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') was imposed upon the assessee by the WTO, F-Ward, Muzaffar Nagar, since return of net wealth on behalf of the minor-assessee was filed by his guardian belatedly on 26-3-1983 as against the alleged due date which is said to be 30-9-1977. It stands sustained by the learned AAC. The assessee as aggrieved is in appeal and we have heard the parties at length.2. Under Section 18(1)(a), if the WTO is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return, which he is required to furnish under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 or by notice given under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 or Section 17 of the Act or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish within the time allowed and in the manner required by Sub-section (1) of Section 14 or by such notice, as the case may be, the WTO, by order in writing, can direct that such person to pay penalty as prescribed in Se...
Sardana Cloth Store Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD445(Delhi)
1. In this second appeal the agitation is that the learned AAC, Rohtak Range, Rohtak erred in confirming the order of the ITO refusing to register the appellant-firm under Section 185(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. The order appealed against is dated 23-3-1985 and the related order under Section 185(1) was passed on 16-11-1984.2. A partnership firm under the name of the appellant-firm was doing business of purchase and sale of cloth. However, after the death of Lala Kalu Ram on 9-15-1981 and Jeth Nand, partner deciding to opt out from the said date, Bhim Sen was inducted by the remaining two partners, namely, Shri Yash Pal and Shri Prem Kumar. Fresh registration application dated 23-9-1981 filed in Form No.11 on the basis of partnership deed executed on 22-6-1981. It is stated by the ITO that the original partnership deed was furnished. As per the deed of 22-6-1981, the profits/losses of the partnership business were to be shar...
Raghunath Prasad Vs. Gulab Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ266
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd April, 1981 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and his suit for possession of the shop in dispute was decreed.(2) In this suit for possession it was alleged that Raghunath Prasad, the defendant was a tenant of shop No. 2728 situated at Sarai Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi at a monthly rental of Rs, 8.20 under the Delhi Warf board. The plaintiff took the said shop on rent from the said Raghunath Prasad in the year 1944 at a monthly rental of Rs. 8.00 and the rent was thereafter increased to Rs. 16.40 per month The plaintiff used to pay a sum of Rs. 8.20 to Delhi Wakf Board and the remaining sum of Rs. 8 20 was paid to the defendant. The Sub-tenancy was created with the permission of Jamait-e-ulm-a-Hind, the then landlord of the shop from whom the property was transferred to Delhi Wakf Board. The fact of subletting wa...
P.K. Mittal Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ227Del
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This matter is at the show cause stage but since the entire counter-affidavit has been filed and the facts are not in dispute, the writ petition itself is being disposed of. The petitioner herein has challenged an order dated 7th February, 1986 which reads as under; 'Please refer to your letter dated 21st January, 1986 tendering resignation from the Bank's Service. The same has been accepted by the Competent Authority with immediate effect by waiving the condition of notice. In view of the above, you are hereby relieved from the service of the Bank today (afternoon) i.e. 7th February, 1986. Your dues shall be settled in terms of Rules. Sd. Chief MBD 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent bank and had sent a communication dated 21st January, 1986, Annexure' 'A' which reads as under :- 'REGISTERED Pradeep Kumar MittalC-208, Naraina Vihar.New Delhi-110 028Manager (on leave)H.B. Divn. P.N. Bank.H.O. New Delhi. 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »