Delhi Court January 1987 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.
South India Corpn. (Agencies) (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT134TriDel
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal, originally filed as a revision application before Govt. of India and transferred to this Tribunal for disposal, as an appeal, is the eligibility of 'DIODES' for exemption from customs duty under Notification No.211/76-Cus. The goods were imported under Bill of Entry No. Cash 20 dated 1.6.1979.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim of the appellants for refund of the customs duty holding that the goods were not entitled to the benefit of said Notification. The Appellate Collector upheld the same by his order despatched on 20.11.80 as unsubstantiated.3. We heard Shri K.K. Koshy, Dy. Manager of the Appellants. Shri Koshi reiterating the contents of the revision application submitted that goods in question 'DIODES' are covered by NMI and DE certificates. He further stated that the appellants have been importing consumables like 'Diodes' and obtained necessary documents covering the same.4. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Usha Prestressed and Allied
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT112TriDel
1. This is an appeal against Order No. 225-CE/.TPR/81, dated 17-12-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Usha Prestressed & Allied Industries, Chittorgarh (hereinafter called the respondents) were engaged in the manufacture of P.C.C. poles falling under item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule is hereafter referred to as CET, for brevity's sake) and availed themselves of excise duty exemption for clearances upto Rs. 15 lakhs during the financial year 1979-80 in terms of central excise notification No. 89/79, dated 1-3-1979. They commenced payment of duty during the month of February 1980. On scrutiny of documents, the Central Excise authorities found that, during 1979-80, the respondents had used 158 P.C.C. poles valued at Rs. 26,356.00 for testing by the Rajas-than State Electricity Board (R.S.E.B.). The value of P.C.C. poles was in excess of the ...
Sangmermer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT725TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants undertake the work of cutting of rough marble blocks into slabs on job-work basis. The marble blocks are supplied by outsiders who pay labour charges for the job-work done by the appellants in their factory at Makrana. The Central Excise authorities considered that the said process of cutting marble blocks into slabs amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that the slabs were liable to be charged to duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule in force during the relevant period. It appears that the appellants were also under the belief that duty had to be paid on marble slabs and had, on that basis, paid excise duty during the period upto 31-3-1981 but on the value of the job charges recovered from their customers. From 1-4-1981, however, the appellants did not pay any duty on the basis that they were eligible for duty exemption in ter...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Paliwal Glass Works
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)20ITD50(Delhi)
1. These are two departmental appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Agra and relate to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73.2. The assessee is deriving income from a glass work factory at Shikoha-bad. While making the assessment the ITO found that the assessee-firm had paid certain amounts for purchase of raw materials required in its business. These payments exceeded Rs. 2,500 but the payments had not been made by crossed-cheques or drafts. After considering the explanations given by the assessee, the ITO held that these payments could not be allowed in view of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). There were in all four payments which were disputed and an addition of Rs. 58,909 was made in the assessment year 1971-72 and an addition of Rs. 12,273 was made in the year 1972-73. The disallowance was upheld by the AAC and the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took up these appeals along with some o...
Escorts Founder'S Welfare Trust Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD342(Delhi)
1. We have the assessee and the revenue in cross-appeals against the order dated 30-11-1984 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi in relation to assessment framed under Section 143(3) in respect of assessment year 1981-82 on 30-1-1984. The accounting year was the financial year ending 31-3-1981.2. The return was filed on 31-8-1981 declaring nil income. The statement of income and expenditure projected dividends of Us.3,62,098. From the details furnished the Income-tax Officer noticed that dividends of Rs. 10,792.50 and Rs. 24,670 were received from Goetze India Ltd. and Sharpedge Ltd. hereinafter referred as the companies, respectively. It is an accepted position that Escorts Ltd. was one of the authors of the trust and substantially interested in both the "said companies and had further given substantial contributions to the funds of the assessee-foundation. Escorts Limited and the said companies were accordingly covered under Section 13(2)(h) of the Income-...
The Co-operative Store Ltd., New Delhi Vs. O.P. Dwivedi P.O. Industria ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR602]; (1988)ILLJ135Del
R.N. Agarwal and Jagdish Chandra, JJ. 1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the virus of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows :- '36. Representation of parties :- (1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by - (a) any member of the executive or other office-bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member; (b) any member of the executive or other office-bearer of the federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated; (c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by any member of the executive or other office-bearer of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be en...
Hans Raj Vs. Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ159; 1987RLR153
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) A short but interesting question of law arises in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The legal question that arises is whether a Tribunal constituted under Section 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, (herein after all 'the Act') can go into the legality and validity of an order passed by the Registrar under Section 60 of the Act referring the disputes to arbitration. The award was in favor of the petitioner and on a appeal by the Society it was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was barred by time and hence not maintainable,(2) The relevant facts are that the petitioner Shri Hans Raj is a member of the government Servants' Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. (Herein after called 'the Society') and he was allotted plot No. 4/15, in site 'A' Shanti Niketan on a premium of Rs. 10.75 per square yard. The Delhi Development Authority (the Lesser) in 1967 rai...
Graphite India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT432TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order of Collector of Customs (Appeals) who has rejected the appellants plea for benefit of exemption Notification No. 121/62, dated 13.6.62 in respect of coal tar and coal tar pitch imported by them. Under Notification No. 121/62 coal tar falling under Item 11 of the Central Excise Tariff was exempted from the whole excise duty leviable thereon. The appellants were denied the benefit of exemption and addl. duty was charged from the appellants on the imported goods. The short point that arises for our consideration is whether the coal tar pitch is covered under Tariff Item 11 and by the term Tar as set out in the said notification. The said tariff item for convenience of reference is reproduced as under:---------------------------------------------------------------------------Item No.Description of goods---------------------------------------------------------------------------II ASPHALT, BITUMEN AND TAR - (1) Asphalt and Bitumen (including cutback bi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Express Company Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: [1987]167ITR894(Delhi)
1. One question is common in all these petitions and that is whether respondent No. 3 was rightly held entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. The assessed is carrying on the business of a hotel and the question is whether this falls under the terms of section 32A. In view of the divergence of opinion in various judicial decisions referred to in the order of the Tribunal, we thereforee, direct the Tribunal to make a statement of the case and refer, for all the three years, the following question for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed carrying on a hotel business was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A?' 2. In the context of the above question, we may point out that the assessed has also raised another common question on which reference is sought in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, th...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ247
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, came to be detained by an order dated 19/2/1986 passed by ShriM.L.Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended). The detention order was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. Be it noted that this detention order was actually executed on 7/5/1986 and even though it was passed on 19/2/1986, it was actually passed on to the District authorities at Hoshiarpur for execution on 19/3/1986. The detention order was passed on the basis of an incident dated 1/12/1985. (2) It is not necessary for me to refer to the detailed grounds of detention. Suffice is to say that on the basis of secret information, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate Jallandhar intercepted detenu along with his sister, a co-detenu namely Smt. Veena Rani and alleged...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »