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.
Jeewan Lal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT144TriDel
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India has been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture non-ferrous articles namely, aluminium utensils and articles. The aluminium utensils are exempted under Notification 244/77 dated 5.7.77. The appellants filed a classification list claiming exemption for utensils including water filters parts manufactured by them. This classification list was approved by the Supdt., on 19.8.77. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise visited the appellants factory and made physical verification of the items purported to be classified as utensils. The appellants filed two other classification lists subsequently which were also approved. A show cause notice was issued on 16.6.80 alleging that the Tiffin Boxes,Tiffin Carriers, Lunch Boxes were not utensils and the benefit of Notification 244/77 would not be applicable. There was a demand for duty of Rs. 54,048.95 from 15.7.77 to 4.4.80. The app...
G.G.T. Kaypee P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC266Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 12th October, 1982.2. The appellants manufacture Grey Iron Castings and Malleable Iron Castings since 1977. From 18.9.1979 they switched over to the manufacture of Steel Castings and obtained necessary L-6 licence. They were also following Chapter X procedure. The Central Audit Party inspected the factory and directed the appellants to take out L-4 licence which they have obtained since 1.10.1980. While so, a show cause notice was issued on 1.12.1980 alleging that the appellants should pay duty on steel castings for the period 9.4.1979 to 30.9.1979.The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,76,323.41. On appeal, the Appellate Collector held that the department did not have any knowledge about the manufacture of Steel Castings before 21.8.1979 when the appellants obtained L-6 licence. He was of the view that a time limit of 5 years would be applicable for the peri...
Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD11(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's appeal arising out of its assessment for assessment year 1981-82.2. The assessee is a charitable trust and its income in the earlier years was treated as exempt under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. One of the properties owned by the trust is property No. 19, Tughlak Road, New Delhi which was settled on trust by Smt. Leela Devi Aggarwal and her son Harsh Kumar Aggarwal, who were the joint owners thereof. At the time of the settlement M/s Ghaziabad Engineering Co. P.Ltd. was a tenant on behalf of the aforesaid assessee in the said property. The said company had taken the premises on lease for the purposes of the residence of Shri P.N. Aggarwal and his family. Shri P.N. Aggarwal is the managing director of the said company and is the husband of Smt. Leela Devi and the father of Shri Harsh Kumar, the settlors. A monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 was being paid by the said company to the trust on account of the aforesaid tenancy in the year under consideration. Wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Free Wheel (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR651(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These three income-tax cases can be disposed of by a common order. 2. The assessment of Free Wheel (India) Ltd. for the assessment year 1970-71, was completed on March 31, 1973, by the Income-tax Officer (for short, 'the ITO') who also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The assessment became final with an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the ITAT') dated December 18, 1979, which was served on the commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, on January 16, 1980. But, by then, the jurisdiction over the assessed's case had been transferred to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, who received the Tribunal's order on March 13, 1980. After the appeals against the assessment were disposed of, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner continued the penalty proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer and on September 29, 1980, passed an order laying a penalty of Rs. 1,12,065. The penalty was imposed for the reason that the assessed had...
Thanthi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Del)167; [1987]167ITR397(Delhi)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. Today only C.M. No. 687 of 1987 is listed but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition it self is being disposed of since it is stated that the matter if covered by a decision of the Supreme Court. 2. A search was conducted pursuant to an authorisation issued under sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and certain documents as mentioned in annexure 'A' to the writ petition and the books of accounts were seized from the room of a director of the petitioner. The seizure list is dated August 7, 1976. It appears that thereafter the Income-tax Officer concerned by order dated December 15, 1977, communicated to the petitioner-trust that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras, has given permission to retain the books and documents till December 31, 1978. Along with this communication, the reasons which prompted the Commissioner to grant the permission/approval to retain the books of account till December 3...
A.R. Puri Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT115; ILR1987Delhi71
M. K. Chawla, J.(1) A short, sweet and interesting question of law regarding the interpretation of the term 'public servant' as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to a person working as an Assessor with an insurance company has arisen which requires going into on the following admitted facts, (2) Anoop Raj Pun is the proprietor of a firm, M/s. M. R. Puri and Co. This firm is engaged as a surveyor of insurance claims with their head office at New Delhi. Shri A..R. Puri is holding a license for the said purpose, issued by the Controller of Insurance, New Delhi. It is a case of the prosecution that truck, Ford Make, Model 1981, bearing Registration No. Rrb 3879 belongs to one Mr. M. S. Bhatia of Jaipur. It met with an accident in District Gurgaon. The said truck was insured with M/s. United India Insurance Company, Jaipur. Sardar Manohar Singh Bhatia lodged a claim of Rs. 1,32,549.57, as damages with the insurance company. Shri V. P. Chawla a private surveyor was ...
Mohammad YasIn Vs. Abdul Kalam and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT143; 1987RLR262
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The petitioner-herein had filed a suit for possession of a portion of a Dallan in premises bearing Municipal No. 857 Katra Hindu Farash Khana, Delhi. In the suit the petitioner had valued the same, for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, at Rs. 500.00 . Written statement was filed by the respondents in which one of the pleas which was raised was that the value of the property was more than Rs. 25,000.00 . (2) The said suit was filed in the year 1978. In 1979 two issues were framed. One of the issues which was framed was 'whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose or court fee and jurisdiction OPD'. The other issue which was framed was 'Whether the defendants have taken illegal possession of the suit premises OPP'. The third issue was of Relief. (3) Though the issues were framed in the year 1979, no evidence has so far been recorded in the suit. I am told that a number of dates were fixed for evidence of the parties but for different reasons...
Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT185TriDel
1. The refund claim of the appellants M/s. Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. with reference to CV duty paid by them on import of synthetic rubber vinyl pyridine latex was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the same was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) under order dated 23-4-1983. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri P.K. Ram, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar for the department.3. The refund claim of the appellants was on the basis that like goods as the goods imported are not manufactured in India and hence no CV duty is payable. This contention would have to be rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works v. Union of India 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222. Shri P.K. Ram very fairly drew our attention to another order of this Tribunal in the case of these appellants themselves in Custom Appeal No. 34/82-C under Order No. C-235/85, dated 27-2-1985 where a similar contention had been rejec...
National Research Development Corporation of India Vs. Britelite Carbo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi317; 32(1987)DLT54
Goswamy, J.1. This application by the respondents under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen in the following circumstances:- The petitioners M/s. National Research Development Corporation of India, filed a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing of the arbitration agreement and for referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration in accordance with clause 12 of the agreement between the parties. According to the said clause, the disputes and differences between the parties are to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman, National Research Development Corporation of India, and if he is unable to act, to the sole arbitration of some other person appointed by him and willing to act as such. Admittedly, on the date the petition came up for hearing before the learned single judge of this court, the office of the Chairman was lying vacant. This court, by agreement of the parties, directed the filing of the agreement and reference of t...
Sylvania and Laxman Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC217; 1987(12)LC618(Delhi); 1987(30)ELT697(Del)
1. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of fluorescent tubes and electric bulbs. The challenge in this petition is to the non-extension of a notification whereby certain percentage of customs duty was exempted. 2. The petitioner had placed orders for the import of glass shells for the manufacture of bulbs. At that time a notification dated 8th June, 1983, was in operation which had been issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act. According to this notification Customs duty in excess of 10% ad valorem was exempted. Paragraph 2 of this notification stipulated that 'This notification shall be in force up to and inclusive of the 31st day of March, 1984.' 3. The petitioner and some other manufacturers had placed orders for the import of glass shells in such a way that the goods were scheduled to arrive in India prior to 31st March, 1984. 4. On 15th March, 1984 the dock workers all over India went on strike. This strike was withdrawn only on 10th April, 1984. Acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »