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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Agro Odour (P) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT460TriDel
1. This is originally a show cause notice issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 as it stood before 11-10-1982 and has now been transferred to this Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 2. Questions involved in this appeal is whether the dehydrated garlic in the form of flakes and powder and packed in polythelene packets is covered by Tariff Item IB relating to "prepared and preserved food" of the Central Excise Tariff.3. Order-in-original passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Assessment Range) did not classify it under Tariff Item IB on the ground that in common usage garlic is not understood as vegetable.Further, this product is not taken as such as an item of food and therefore, the dehydrated garlic in the form of flakes and powder could not be classified as "prepared and preserved food".4. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bomb...
S. Puran Sethi Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD18(Delhi)
1. The assessee is an individual. His sources of income are from Gulab Singh Sethi & Sons, an unregistered firm, income from house property at 47, Hanuman Road, New Delhi and from other sources.2. This appeal by the assessee is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 4,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').The assessee declared an income of Rs. 80,556 in his return for this year. Admittedly this did not include income from the (self-occupied) property at Hanuman Road, assessed at Rs. 2,500 this year and Rs. 1,500 being the annuity refund receivable for this year. It was finally assessed at Rs. 1,36,131. On the completion of the assessment a notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee for omission of the items of Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 1,500 noted supra. In response to the above notice, the assessee filed a reply dated 28-3-1979. This reply dealt with only Rs. 1,500 and not the other omission of Rs. 2,500. It was explained by the assessee here that...
Stup Consultants Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas784(Delhi); ILR1986Delhi519
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The petitioner company has filed this writ petition as the Central Government by its letter dated 14th January, 1983, Annexure 'K' to the writ petition, has not- given an expression of opinion regarding the professional status of Shri C. R. Alimchandani, who was appointed as its Senior Chief Consultant, by a Resolution dated 20-7-1982 in its General Meeting. (2) It is stated in the writ petition that Shri C. R. Alimchandani is one of the 'Outstanding Professionals in the field of Structural Design' and diverse applications of pre-stressed Concrete Technology This is stated in paragraph No. 6 of the Petition which reads as under:- '6.Shri C. R. Alimchandani holds the technical post of Senior Chief Consultant-and has attained the lop-most level on the technical side of the company by dint of professional merit acquired by him ever since his graduation in Civil Engineering from Poona University, at the age of 22, in 1957 ranking first in the University. He proceede...
Raka Electricals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC127
1. This revision petition dated 2-5-1980 was the result of the order-in-appeal No. 58-B/80 dated 23-1-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.2. M/s. Electricals supplied armatures to' the Railways for carriage fans during the period 8-9-73 to 13-2-75. They say that they bought 7307 armatures from Shyama Electricals and sold 7050 of these to the Railways. The central excise officers made inquiries in -April 1975 and were told that they purchased the armatures from Shyama Electricals. It is said that this Shyama Electricals firm went out of the business and closed their factory around February 1975. In the proceedings against Raka Electricals the Central Excise issued a demand for Rs. 61,299.75 on 7050 armatures which had been removed without payment of duty.3. The defence of the notice receivers was that Shyama Electricals existed at the address given by them from September 1973 to 18-2-1975 and that therefore it was Shyama Electricals who manufactured the 70...
Attar Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi304; ILR1986Delhi532
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this judgment I propose to dispose of two suits filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act by the petitioner against the respondents. Parties are same in both the suits. (2) Suit No. 1302-A/84 relates to the disputes arising out of six electric meters installed at the premises of the petitioner. He says he has been making payments of the electric charges as per bills given by the respondents. There are two respondents. Respondent No. I is the Corporation constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Respondent No. 2 is Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, an Undertaking of respondent No. I Corporation for the purpose of generating or acquiring supplies of electricity and providing (including bulk supplies) of electricity for licensees and persons other than licensees. The petitioner says that the premises where these electric meters are installed are being used by him for running a hotel for residential purposes and one of the six meters installed...
Optical Instrument Company Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT389
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of the E.S.I.C. Judge in ESIC/13/74. This order was passed on 8.3.76, dismissing the appellant's application under section 75 read with Section 77 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In the said application the appellant bad contended that the notices issued by the respondent Corporation on 10th May, 1974 under Section 40 and Section 73(a) and the orders of the recovery of Rs. 7099.80 and Rs. ll,210.00 were invalid. These orders were issued to the Collector for the recovery of the amounts as arrears of land revenue. (2) Notice under Section 40 was issued for non-present of the contribution for the period between 1.7.69 to January 1974. Notice under section 73(a) for the special contribution was for the period between 30.9 69 to 30.6.73. Shri B.K. Kitbhlu started a proprietory concern for manufacturing optical instruments 1963. In July 1971 it was registered as a factory and small scale industry. In April 1973 the concern...
inspecting Assistant Vs. S. Khushwant Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD540(Delhi)
1. We have this appeal and cross-objection at the instance of the revenue and the assessee. We are disposing of the appeal and the cross-objection by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.But before we set out the issue and consider the contentions of the rival parties before us, we record factual backdrop of the case for proper appreciation of their contentions.2. There was a HUF having Sir Shobha Singh and his four sons, S/Shri Bhagwant Singh, S. Khushwant Singh, Brig. Gurbax Singh and S. Daljit Singh, as its coparceners. On 9-6-1947, the properties belonging to this HUF, both movable and immovable, were partitioned as per deed of partition dated 9-6-1947. In terms of the said deed of partition, the property commonly known as Scindia House, New Delhi fell to the share of S. Khushwant Singh and Brig. Gurbax Singh, in the portion of half share each. Since the poperty known as Scindia House came to S.Khushwant Singh and Brig. Gurbax Singh on account of partition of the HU...
interocean Shipping Co. Vs. Ram Lubhaya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT326
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is the tenant's revision petition against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, directing his eviction under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was alleged by the tenant that the premises were taken for the purposes of residence as well as business. It was also contended that the requirement of the landlords was not bonafide. (2) At the time of arguments, it was agreed between the parties that the tenancy was created by a lease deed dated 22-3-68. This document was produced in the Trial Court but was not exhibited. I permitted the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty & penalty and he has exhibited the lease deed as Exhibit C-1. (3) As regards the nature of tenancy, two clauses in the lease deed are crucial, Clause 12 and Clause 16. Clause 12 reads, 'that the lessee shall use the premises for the purpose of his residence only' and Clause 16 reads as, 'That the lessee agrees to pay Rs. 100.00 as advance per month as extra charges which ...
Dalip Singh Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT187TriDel
1. By the order No. A-7 and 8/86-NRB dated 9.1.1986, this Tribunal upheld the orders of confiscation of primary gold weighing 1.600 Kgs., 150 wrist watches and silver weighing 18.900 Kgs. under Section 111(d) and 113 respectively of the Customs Act, 1962 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, under his order-in-original No. 8/Customs/83 dated 2.7.83 and reduced the penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on the applicant by the said Collector under Section 112 of the Customs Act to Rs. 2 lakhs. By the order No. A-7 and 8/86-NRB dated 9.1.1986, this Tribunal also upheld the order of confiscation of primary gold weighing 1.600 Kgs. under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the applicant under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh. These reference applications are directed against the aforesaid order of this Tribunal. In these applications, filed under Section 1...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Shiv Mohan Sharma (Huf)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD41(Delhi)
1. A preliminary objection has been taken by Shri C.S. Aggarwal advocate on behalf of the assessee, to the effect that the present Bench has no jurisdiction to hear these wealth-tax appeals as both the Members thereof are Judicial Members. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the following observations of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT v. S. Ballah [1978] 114 ITR 858 : . . . The definition of 'Bench' in the Rules makes it manifest that it is a Bench constituted under Sub-section (1) of Section 255 from among the Members thereof. Though there is no reference to Sub-section (2) of Section 255 in Section 24(11) of the Act, yet, the Bench, to comply with the requirement of Section 255(2), must consist of one Judicial Member and one Accountant Member. 'Bench', when read in the light of the definition in the Rules and Sub-section (2) of Section 255, can only mean a Bench of two Members, i.e., one Judicial Member and one Accountant Member...(p. 862) 2. From the side of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »