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.
Rameshwar Prasad Shishir Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC805Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against rejection of application for a gold dealers licence made by the appellant in December 1982. Application was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that there was no need for increasing the number of licenced dealers in the town of Kashipur where the appellant resides and wanted to set up a gold dealers business. Acting on the guidelines laid down in Rule 2(1) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, the original authority has stated that the turnover in the preceding three years namely", 1980, 1981 and 1982 in the town of Kashipur had been as follows :-1980 2234.874 gms. for 3 gold dealers.1981 1889.305 gms. for 2 gold dealers.1982 2765.509 gms. for 3 gold dealers.Original authority on the basis of the above data has come to the conclusion that the turnover in 1982 was 921.836 gms. per dealer per year as against the turnover of 944.652 gms. per dealer per year in 1981. In this view of things the original authority considered that th...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. A.M. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT359TriDel
1. M/s. A.M. Industries (respondents before us) are manufacturers of what they call veneer faced timber flanges. They had mentioned the same in their Form No. 1 dated 18-1-1978 as non exisable. Notice dated 8-6-78 was issued to them to them to show cause why approval should not be granted to the said list modifying the abovesaid item as falling under TI 16B(ii) GET. They replied reiterating their contention that the same was non-excisable. By order dated 5-8-1978 the Assistant Collector overruled their objection and ordered approval of the classification list with the modification as proposed. The respondents went up in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise Calcutta. From the order of the Appellate Collector dated 9-4-1981 it transpires that following the order of the Assistant Collector dated 5-8-1978 a show cause-cum-demand had been issued on 10-11-1978 in respect of goods cleared from 1-12-1977 to 31-5-1978. The order on the classification list as well as this demand ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Popular Cotton Covering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT742TriDel
1. This dispute is a very simple one. The department says when a metal conductor of copper or aluminium is covered with paper or cotton or glass fibre, it becomes assessable again to duty under Item 33-B of the Central Excise Tariff. The assessees, M/s. Popular Cotton Covering Works, however, say that the gods do not become excisable again, since the bare wires have already borne duty and after covering with cotton or fibre glass or paper, they remain conductors in the same Tariff Item.2. A good deal of arguments was presented by the two learned Counsels before us.3. The counsel for the appellant, Collector of Central Excise, said that they want to charge duty under Item 33-B of the Central Excise Tariff. He said that in accordance with 1986 (24) E.L.T. 542 re : Garden Plastico, the coating with glass fabric or paper or cotton fabric would be a manufacture and would attract duty again to the wire, because after the coating/covering they become insulated wires of copper or aluminium. H...
K.C. Malhotra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD401(Delhi)
1. These cross appeals arise out of the order dated 10-9-1985 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh for the A.Y.1982-83.2. The assessee, who is an individual carries on transport business in the name and style of Bestways Transport Corpn., Faridabad. In the assessment year in question he plied five trucks and one taxi. The first ground in the assessee's appeal relates to the claim of depreciation on truck No. DEG 1363 (HRU 8316). The assessee had not claimed depreciation in the original return but only in the revised return filed on 25-3-1985. It was a 1982 model open truck which the assessee purchased on 17-2-82 from Pacos G.T. Karnal Road Kundli, District Sonepat for Rs. 2,30,180. He obtained permission on 18-3-1982 from the Secretary R.T.A. Paridabad for getting this vehicle inspected by the Board of Inspection. The body was constructed on the vehicle and then it was produced before the Board of Inspection on 19-9-82. However the Certificate of fitness was...
Rishi Gagan Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi327; 32(1987)DLT46; 1987(13)DRJ242; 1987RLR312
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2833 and 2834 of 1986. Since the facts of both the petitions are identical facts of Cwp No. 2833/86 are taken.(2) This petition is filed by M/s. Rishi Gagan Constructions (P) Ltd. and one of its Director Sh. Manmohan Singh for quashing an order dated 8th October, 1986 intimating the petitioner No. I that since they have failed to deposit the balance amount of premium in respect of the plot in dispute within the stipulated period, the bid has been cancelled and the amount of earnest money has been forfeited.(3) This order was passed by Director (CL) of Delhi Development Authority, a statutory authority constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Under Section 22 of the Act the Central Government has placed certain Nazul land at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority constituted under the aforesaid Act and thereafter such Nazul lands have to be dealt with by...
Mohan Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ176
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) On 24-2-1981 three persons are alleged to have committed trespass into the house of Smt. Sham Lata Goel to commit an offence of robbery. They were armed with deadly weapons like knife and in the process of committing the robbery they caused injury to Sham Lata and decamped with Gold Bangles, Ear Rings, Diamond set, cash and other valuable articles. The fourth person dealt with and disposed of stolen articles.. Charan Singh accused was arrested on 6-9-1981 in some case and on 15-9-1981 Police was able to apprehend Mohan Singh accused. Ram Pal Singh was able to delay his arrest till 12-11-1981. Sher Singh accused has not yet been arrested and so rightly declared as proclaimed offender. The charges under Sections 392/394/34 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. were framed on 23-3-1983. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused faced a protracted trial for a period of more than two years. Accused Charan Singh and Mohan Singh w...
Prith Pal Singh Vs. Hira Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT9
Goswamy, J.(1) This second appeal by the owner-landlord is directed against the judgment dated 1.6.1984 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby the appeal of the tenant was allowed and the eviction order passed against the tenant under clause (b) and (h) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was set aside. (2) The appellant had sought eviction of the respondent on the grounds of sub-letting and acquiring alternate accommodation by the tenant. In defense, it was pleaded by the respondent that he was in possession of the property not as a tenant but in his own right. Reliance was placed on a receipt allegedly having been executed by one of the co-owners Ex. R.1. According to the said receipt, Swaran Singh one of the co-owners had agreed to sell the property to the respondent and one Aya Singh for a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 and had received Rs. 2000.00 as earnest money. In part performance of the contract, the possession of one room was delivered to the res...
Parkash Chand Agrawal Vs. N.P.S. Chawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT210
Goswamy, J.(1) This second appeal by the landlord is directed against the judgment dated 23/11/1978 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the eviction order was set aside and the appeal of the tenant was allowed in part.(2) In the original petition for eviction, the eviction was sought on the ground that the appellant had no suitable accommodation and he had also to marry his son for whom there was not enough accommodation in the premises. During the course of arguments in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application being Cm 836 of 1987 under Order 6Rule 5 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the eviction petition. By this application, the appellant wishes to bring on record certain additional facts. Some of the facts have arisen subsequent to the filing of the original petition and some facts now sought to be raised were existing even at the time of original petition, However, these grounds and facts were not raised ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fact Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT480TriDel
1. The Government by Notice F.No. 198/3/229/82-CX.5, dated 19.8.1982 issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, wants to review the order of the Appellate Collector of Madras, No.40/82(B), dated 2.3.1982, because it considers that when steel pipes are coated with cement internally and with weld mesh and cement externally, it leads to the emergence of a new product, cement coated pipes, which have a "name, characteristic and use" distinct from those of the steel pipes, and that such a manufactured product viz. cement coated pipes, is liable to be classified under the residuary Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. This is completely incorrect said the learned counsel for M/s. FACT Engineering Works.2. The learned SDR, however, supported the Government's notice vehemently.3. The steel pipe coated with cement is nothing but a cement coated steel pipe. The government itself says that what emerges is a cement coated pipe, but it does not say what kind of cement c...
Mohd. Haroon Japanwala Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD61(Delhi)
1. Appellant assessee by his present appeal challenges order dated 19-1-1985 of the learned CIT(A), New Delhi for the assessment year 1976-77, inter alia, on the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts as well as in law in not holding that notice issued under Section 148 was illegal and invalid and without any information on the record and also in spite of the fact that the very same ITO has also started Gift-tax proceedings against Mohd. Suleman. This tantamounts that even the department had no material for holding that any capital gain has escaped. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that there was no dispute in the family over the distribution of the property. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in ignoring valuation report of property dated 26-6-1982 which he himself referred in his letter dated 10/11-2-84. It is, therefore, prayed that the proceedings under Section 147 (b) may kindly be quashed or in the alternative it may be ordered t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »