Delhi Court March 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT60TriDel
1. M/s. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal exported consignments of lumpy iron ore, which were charged to export duty under heading 11(1) of the second schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, read with Notification No.331 Cus.-76, at different rates according to the percentage of iron contained in the ore as determined by drying the sample to a temperature of 105 centigrade as laid down in the ISI specifications.They applied for refund on reassessment of the goods on the basis of percentage of iron content as in the condition in which the ore had been presented for examination (that is) in moist condition. The same was rejected by the Assistant Collector. On appeal the Appellate Collector, under order dated 11-12-1979, allowed the appeal and ordered consequential refund of duty. In doing so he relied on the order of the Government of India dated 31-12-1973. Subsequently, the Central Govt.issued notice dated 27-1-1981 under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, as they were of the view that the ord...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. T.S. Bedi and Family (Huf)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD534(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the revenue and cross-objections by the assessee are directed against the two orders of the AAC dated 7-11-1985 and 11-11-1985 respectively relating to asstt. years 1979-80 and 1980-81.The grievance of the revenue is that he erred in law in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. This in a nutshell was the argument in chief by the revenue.2. On the other hand, the 1d. counsel for the assessee supported the orders of the AAC and proceeded to further make his submissions as under.3. It was submitted by him. that the assessee is one of the parties who contributed money to put up a structure, known as 'Kailash Building', on a piece of land and thereafter became entitled to possession, use, occupation and right of enjoyment of a flat therein. Therefore, in view of the Special Judgement of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. R.K.Sawhney [1982] 2 ITD 207 (Delhi) (SB), the assessee for the purpose of Wealth-tax Act w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Times Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR145(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. The question on which a reference is by the Commissioner is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessed a deduction of Rs. 95,811 paid by it as a special commission to Orient Investment Private Limited. It is common ground that the commission was paid in respect of property assessed under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is also common ground that the expenditure is allowable only if it falls within section 24(1)(viii) which allows a deduction in respect of 'any sum spent to collect the rents from the property, not exceeding 6% of the annual value of the property'. It is also common ground that the amount incurred by the assessed fell within the ceiling above mentioned. 2. Both the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have given a concurrent finding that the commission was paid in order to enable the assessed to collect the rent. The agreement between the assessed and Orient Investment Private Limited was entered into in some...
Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. Harbans Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT63; 1987(13)DRJ203
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is a regular second appeal challenging the decisions of the Courts below whereby suit filed by the respondent under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code was decreed in the sum of Rs. 3,340 with costs and future interest.(2) The respondent filed a suit under Order 37 claiming that the appellant herein had issued a cheque dated 22nd December, 1977 for a sum of Rs. 3,000 in favor of the respondent. This cheque was stated to have been issued for consideration. It was alleged that this cheque, when presented to the banker's, was dishonoured on 23rd December, 1977. The suit was filed on 2nd November, 1979.(3) The appellant herein was granted leave to defend. In the written statement which was filed it was contended that the cheque for Rs. 3,000 was issued by way of loan to the respondent. The case of the appellant was that he had not taken any loan from the respondent and that the suit had been filed by way of a counter-blast to arbitration proceedings which had been ...
Jyoti Limited Vs. Kanwaljit Kaur BhasIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas626(Delhi); 1987CriLJ1282; 32(1987)DLT198
ORDER 39 R. 2A Consequence of disobedience of breach of injunction.(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule I or rule 2 or breach of any of the treason which the injunction was granted or the order made, the court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach tobe attached, and may also order such person to be detained In the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless In the meantime the Court directs his release.' SECTION 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971'Civil contempt' means willful disobedience to any judgment,decree, direction, order writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court ; SECTION 12(1)Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any otherlaw, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which ma...
Sujatha International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT413TriDel
1. These two appeals were originally filed as Revision Applications before the Govt. of India and were statutorily transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as appeals. Both these appeals involve common questions of law and facts; both were represented by the same Consultant. We, therefore, heard them together and proceed to dispose of them together.2. The question before us is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of project importation in respect of the goods imported by them. The appellants imported Dubbing and Recording equipments stated to be for the substantial expansion of an existing unit. They sought registration of contract in respect of the same so as to become eligible for concessional assessment under the Heading 84.66-CTA. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim for registration after noting that in spite of a request and a reminder, the appellants did not produce the contract. He rejected the claim made by the appellants in the following words: "The faci...
Boots Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT446TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Boots Company (India) Ltd. imported 442 cartons of frozen ox pancreas glands and 158 cartons of frozen small ox pancreas glands by vessel S.S. Export Agent, the relevant bill of entry being presented therefor on 5-3-1979. Their claim for assessment at concessional rate having been negatived they paid duty under Heading 05.01/15(1) CTA 'and later preferred a refund claim for Rs. 2,72,479.50 paise. The same was rejected by the Assistant Collector by order dated 2-3-1981 on the ground (as seen from the appeal memorandum) that the refund claim was not properly filed, the grounds were not explicitly mentioned and that Notification 127/76 had been rescinded by Notification No. 63/79, dated 1-3-1979 and bill of entry being dated 5-3-1979 benefit of concessional assessment under the notification was not available. The appeal against the said order was rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs by order dated 16-7-1982. This appeal is against the said order.2. We hav...
Singarani Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT353TriDel
1. This is an appeal against order No. 119/85(H), dated 27-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The dispute is over the assessment of castings which are subjected to the process of annealing, machining and polishing. The Assistant Collector held that these processes had not brought into existence articles distinct and different from castings. Unfortunately, the Assistant Collector does not give any reasons for his decision. He merely says that he had gone through the case records, the oral and written submissions; on this basis he came to the conclusion that the goods should be assessed under tariff item 26AA as it stood before 1-8-1983 and under item 25 after 1-8-1983 on all the 93 items that became the subject of the dispute.2. Before the Appellate Collector an argument was presented that the castings were intermediate products as the appellants wanted to manufacture identifiable machine parts like tub wheels and other parts of mining equipment. The Ap...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT259TriDel
1. The facts of the case, as briefly stated in the impugned order, are that the respondents are a composite mill manufacturing, among others, cotton fabrics. During the period from 15-7-1977 to 31-7-1977, they paid excise duty in excess of the old rate without taking into consideration changes made in the rate structure on 15-7-1977 since these changes were made known to them much later. They had requested the Range Superintendent to refund the excess duty paid by making a suitable endorsement in the R.T. 12 return for the month of July '77.The Range Superintendent did not allow the refund/credit and directed to file a separate refund claim to the proper officer and they did so accordingly. Since this refund claim was made after lapse of six months, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division 'E', Bombay, has rejected the same as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. In appeal the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, held that having regard to th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Inchek Tyres Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC144
1. Under notice dated 26-4-1982 a demand was made on the Respondents M/s. Inchek Tyres Ltd. for payment of duty under Tariff Item 68 Central Excise Tariff on scrap of tyres and tubes removed by them without payment of duty during the period 4-5-1975 to 9-12-1978. The respondents denied liability claiming that such scrap was not an excisable product. By order dated 29-6-1982 the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta held that the scrap was liable for payment of duty under Tariff Item 68 Central Excise Tariff but, in confirming the demand, restricted it to the period 26-4-1977 to 9-12-1978 holding that the demand for the earlier period was barred by time. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under order dated 29-11-1982. This appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta is against the said order.2. None appeared today on behalf of the respondents in spite of issue of notice. We have heard Smt. Saxena...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »