Delhi Court July 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.
Premier Packaging Private Vs. Collecltor of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC323Tri(Delhi)
1. It is alleged in the present matter that appellants used 23,45,352 Kgs. of kraft paper for manufacture of kraft board during the period from April, 1972 to November, 1974 but accounted for only 15,14,438 Kgs. of kraft board. The Department, therefore,, charged appellants with manufacture, non-accountal and removal without payment of duty and without observing due procedure 5,01,544 Kgs. of kraft board.2. Shri K. Narasimhan, Advocate appears, on behalf of the appellant. He submits that the period for which duty has been demanded is April,, 1972 to November, 1974. The show cause notice was issued on 12th May, 1975. Thereafter what is described by the learned Advocate as a corrigendum, was issued by the Department on 10th February, 1977 which explained the basis of duty demanded in the show cause notice dated 12th May, 1975. According to the learned Advocate the first show cause notice issued on 12th May, 1975 was in fact incomplete and it is only with the issue of the subsequent noti...
Gurdas Ram and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD96(Delhi)
1. In this second appeal, confirmation of penalty of Rs. 1,85,598 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut, which was levied under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for late filing of return by four months, in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 is contested.2. The previous year, being the financial year, ending 31-3-1981, the assessee, a firm of seven partners, was required to file its voluntary return under Section 139(1) of the Act on or before 31-7-1981. On 30-7-1981 an extension application in prescribed Form No. 6 was submitted stating that the 'books of account are under audit'. The request was accepted and time allowed up to 31-8-1981. On 30-8-1981, a fresh extension request was made and the same reason was given as earlier. The ITO communicated rejection on 12-9-1981. The assessee reacting filed third extension application repeating the reasons for the request. This application also came to be rejected. On 31-10-1981, a fourth extension application was...
Sheoji Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT334
Sananda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner filed a suit no. 354 of 1979 for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi claiming possession of a plot opposite Uphar Cinema, Green Park, New Delhi in the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. During the pendency of the suit the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed by an ad-interim ex-parte injunction by order dated 5th June 1973 which was later on confirmed vide order dated 22nd August 1973. An appeal was filed against the order granting injunction by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which was dismissed on 22nd February 1975. Ultimately, however the suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi on 3rd July 1982. Since the suit was dismissed and the petitioner apprehended dispossession an application for stay was moved before the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, on that application Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed the following order : 'HEARD.The effect of the judgment is stayed till 12-7-82 only in the intere...
Daya Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ195
Sunanda Bhandarc, J.(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 12th March 1986 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration, Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to at the Act).(2) In the grounds served en the petitioner Along with the detention order it was alleged that on 15th July 1985 the petitioner who was working as a Sweeper in Air India was kept under survillance by the Customs Officer at Delhi Airport. He had attended flight No. Al-301 which came from Hongkong/Bangkok on that day. He Along with other cleaning staff had left the pron area in van No DEV-6260 He alighted near the inter section of the Iac Gate and Tmo of Delhi Airport when he was intercepted and was asked in the presence of two independent witnesses if he was carrying any contraband on his persons. Thereafter, his person was...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Grace Paper Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT501TriDel
1. The question that comes up for decision in this appeal is the classification of three products manufactured by the respondents, viz.2. Before the Assistant Collector, the appellants argued that these products are manufactured from Polyster Film which are lacquered arid that even after lacquering, the products still remained as Polyester Film falling under T.I. 15A(2) CET. They also referred to a Trade Notice (No. 160/82 dated 13-8-1982) issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and to a letter of the Central Board of Customs & Excise dated 7-4-1984. The Asstt. Collector rejected the arguments and observed that the products in question could not be identified or described as Polyester Film and that these products would not be recognised as Polyester Film in trade parlance as coated polyester. The three end product have a specific name, characteristics and use. He held that the raw material (Polyester Film) having been subjected to manufacturing process it lost its identi...
income-tax Officer Vs. S.L. Batra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD342(Delhi)
1. In the only one ground raised in this appeal by the revenue, objection taken to the order dated 8-10-1984 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in the following terms : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in treating the sum of Rs. 61,982 spent by the assessee on renovation of office, taken on lease from his son as revenue expenditure as against capital expenditure rightly held by the ITO in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Hotel Diplomat v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 781.2. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 61,982 towards the cost of providing wooden partitions, panelling of walls, false ceiling, fixing book cases and platform type tables on the walls and on painting, polishing, whitewashing and floor polishing, etc. A contract was given by the assessee to a firm named Vibgyor of New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 75,000 for getting the above wo...
Collector of Customs Vs. Walker Anjaria and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT851TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether for the purposes of item 12 of the second schedule of Indian Tariff Act, 1934 also known as Export Tariff, 'Scoured wool' is included in expression 'raw wool' as claimed by the Revenue or 'scoured wool' is a different commodity from raw wool as claimed by the respondent.2. Before the precise issue is taken up for consideration, it is necessary to give a brief narration of events leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. The respondents with respects to exports of scoured wool had another matter hereinafter called Jamnagar matter and refund of Rs. 26,04,372.71 p. was ordered by the Assistant Collector of Customs on various dates between 19-8-1974 to 22-11-1974. The Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad within whose jurisdiction Jamnagar falls issued show cause notice dated 4-2-1976 proposing to review this order and this order was reviewed and set aside and amount refunded to the respondents, ordered to be r...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shiv Kumar Ashok Kumar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC181
1. Both the appeals were heard together since they relate to the same respondent and the facts were inter-connected. On 19-1-77, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents, M/s. Shiv Kumar Ashok Kumar to the ' effect that duty had been short levied as mentioned in the annexure A to the notice and calling upon them to show cause why the short levied duty was not to be collected. The short levy was said to have arisen due to non-payment of duty on the proofed cloth, water proofing having been done by solution heated with steam. The respondents replied denying liability. The period of the alleged short levy was 19-1-76 to 22-11-76. On adjudication, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Divn. IV confirmed the demand raised under the show cause notice so far as it related to the period subsequent to 19-1-76 but. withdraw the demand in respect of the balance. On appeal, the Appellate Collector under his order dated 14-5-79 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Subseque...
Nanak Chand Sood Vs. Ram Gautam and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT294
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of Sub Judge, Delhi dated 12th July 1985 in Execution Case No. 182/72. The land measuring 2016 sq. yards situated in Khasra No. 739, Khasra No. 341/1293. Village Tughlakabad, Badarpur Mehrauli Road, New Delhi was purchased by the petitioner in a public auction held on 12th March 1979 for a sum of Rs. 7.200.00 . The auction was held pursuant to the directions of the court in execution of a decree against respondent no. 2, the judgment debtor. Respondent no. 1 is the decree holder. Against the said sale by public auction objections were filed by the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 Civil Procedure Code . On the objections of the judgment debtor respondent no. 2 the following issue was framed by the executing court : 1. Whether the auction of the property in question is liable to be set aside Opd 2.Relief. (2) The parties were asked to file the list of witnesses and to lead ev...
Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT497TriDel
1. The appellants claimed refund of Additional (Countervailing) duty on two grounds (i) as the imported goods namely, Dutrex RT is not produced or manufactured in India, it would not be liable to additional duty and (ii) that even if liable, it would fall under item 10 of the first Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and not Tariff item 11A as assessed by the Revenue.2. At the hearing today, Shri T.K. Ramasubramanyan, Taxation Controllerstated that the appellants do not press the first ground in vie of several precedents against the appellants on this point. He confined his arguments only to the second ground. For the purpose, he relied on a decision of the Tribunal in Order No. 272 to 384- C parties Mis. Dunlop India Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Customs, Madras order dated 22nd May, 1984 which has been followed in several subsequent decisions by the Tribunal.3. Shri Sunder Rajan learned Jr. Departmental Representative representing the respondents agreed that the precedents...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »