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.
Pilco Pharma Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC8Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufactured patent and proprietary medicines at Kanpur. In dispute in this appeal is the question as to what was the normal price for assessment of their goods to Central excise duty.2. The adjudicating Collector has held them guilty of short-payment of duty through fraudulent mis-declaration of the value of their goods, and ordered them to pay the differential duty of Rs. 1,73,269.28 Under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period of 5 years (1978-79 to 1982-83) and has further imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on them Under Rule 173Q of the same Rules.3. During the hearing before us, the appellants first raised a couple of legal pleas, namely; (1) that there was violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the 60 and odd retailers whose statements were relied on by the department against them were not produced for cross examination by the appellants even though asked for at the stage of adjudication, and (2) the demand for differentia...
Janta Nirman Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD369(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue and one other appeal on the issue of registration filed by the assessee involving common issues and, therefore, they are disposed of by a composite order. In the appeal by the assessee, the common grounds that have been raised are that: (a) the assessee's status is that of a non-resident and its control and management are outside India ; (b) if answer to (a) above is 'yes', then the income, if any, from out of India is not taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act; (c) if the answer to (a) above is in the negative, then since the assessee has filed a loss return the revenue authorities were wrong in arriving at a positive income without any basis ; and (d) the revenue authorities were wrong in not allowing the relief under Section 35B in respect of the expenses incurred in Kuwait.3. In regard to the first ground that is the claim of status of nonresident, the plea of the assessee was that the firm, which comprised of three partn...
Jagannath Prasad Jhalani and Others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commis ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas571(Delhi); (1987)63CTR(Del)312; [1987]168ITR341(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This petition under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), was filed on 4th September, 1984. Earlier, when the petition was filed, the petitioner company was known as M/s. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. The name of the company was changed to M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. and this new name was registered under section 23 of the Act. It was stated that the change in the name would not affect any prosecution sought to be launched by any of the respondents. In fact, this is what sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act says. By an order dated 1st December, 1986, on an application (C.A. No. 2518 of 1986), the name of M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. was allowed to be substituted in place of M/s. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2. There are 10 petitioners and respondents are 6 in number. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are Income-tax Officers under the charge of Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, and Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi VI, New...
Kochhar Construction Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)ARBLR109(Delhi); ILR1987Delhi571
G.C. Jain, J.(1) The Executive Engineer, P & T (Civil) Div. No. Iii P.O. Building, Chankyapuri New Delhi on behalf of the President of India, invited tenders for 'construction of Vertical Extension of T. E. Building. Chankyapuri. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 5,22,818. M/s. Kochhar Construction Company (hereafter to be referred as the contractor) submitted its tender for executing the said work for a sum of Rs. 8,84,534.66. This tender was accepted by letter dated July 29, 1980 and the work was awarded to the Contractor vide agreement No. 23/PE III/80-81. Under the agreement the department was to provide 230 metric tonnes of cement; 67.5 metric tonnes of TOP.. steel and 4 metric tonnes of mild steel at the rate of Rs. 495; Rs. 3180.50 and Rs. 2455 per metric tonne respectively. The work was to commence on August 13, 1980 and was to be completed by August 12, 1981. The work could not be completed by the stipulated date and the agreement was rescinded by letter dated August 21, ...
Sumer Chand Vs. Maxwell Pereira and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)Crimes89; 32(1987)DLT140
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 19th July 1984 passed by respondent No. I under section 47 of Delhi Police Act directing that the petitioner be externed from the limits of North District of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years within seven days from the date of the order and not to enter the said limits within two years excepting with the prior permissions. (2) The challenge to the externment order has been thrown on various grounds. In short, it is stated that the order is arbitrary and has been made without any basis. The affidavit submitted by the Sho Sabzi Mandi on the basis of knowledge derived from official record states that the petitioner was involved in a number of cases and is a desperate character of the area and his movements are causing harm, alarm and danger to the residents of the locality and the area. It is further stated that the witnesses includ...
Amar Pal Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT7
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a view to challenge the opening of history sheet by police station Subzi Mandi, Delhi, against the petitioner. The petitioner has detailed a long history as to how he came to be involved in various false cases and the background in which the history-sheet was opened against him (2) For purposes of disposal of this petition, it is not necessary for me to go through all these details. Suffice to say that the history-sheet was admittedly opened against the petitioner on 8/5/1982 under the orders of Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi. (3) In the counter affidavit, respondent Sho, Subzi Mandi, has given details about five cases which were registered at different times against the petitioner. According to him on review of the activities of the petitioner it was felt that the petitioner is a desperate character and is reasonably believed to be a habitual offender and,...
Chaman Lal Talwar Vs. Trilok Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT190
Leila Seth, J.(1) This is a civil revision challenging the order passed byMr. D.K. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, on 2.4th February, 1986, rejecting the prayer for condensation of delay and dismissing the application for leave to defend as time barred.(2) The facts are set out in brief. Mr Trilok Chand and others, therespondent, purchased the property at No. 41UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi, from one Mr. 0m Prakash on 3/03/1975. Mr. Chaman Lal Talwar, the petitioner, was already a tenant in a portion of the second floor of the saidproperty.(3) On 28 the May, 1985, the respondents-landlords filed a petition under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The prescribed summons was served in the ordinary way onMr. Chaman Lal Talwar on 3/06/1985. A summons was also sent by registered post acknowledgment due and this was served on the petitioner on 7/06/1985.(4) On 20/07/1985, the petitioner filed an application for leave to defend along wit...
ShamsuddIn Akbar Khan and Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT315TriDel
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India, on transfer is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants which are a partnership firm manufacture and sell 'gudakhu' which is nothing but manufactured tobacco within the ambit of Item 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. In the appellants' own case the Orissa High Court has upheld the contention and the decision has been reported in 35 STC 179. While considering the provisions of the Tariff Schedule and Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the High Court has held that gudakhu is a kind of manufactured tobacco like cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, biri, chewing tobacco and snuff, and was very much akin to hookah tobacco, specified in the Item. In spite of the decision of the High Court the Assistant Collector, Cuttack, issued a requisition on 4-8-1977 to the appellants to take out Central Excise Licence alleging that gudakhu was liable to pay excise duty under Tariff Item 68. The appellants were...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC73
1. Appeal at Sl. No. 1 was listed for hearing on 11.3.87. Appeal at Sl.No.2 however could not be listed, despite the request from Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, due to non-traceability of papers till filed a few days back. After the arguments in the first appeal were concluded, both the sides were asked whether the second appeal namely No. 2015/84-0 could also be disposed of in the light of arguments furnished by them on the first appeal namely 237/84-D. Neither side had any objection to the aforesaid proposal.2. Since a common question is involved in both the appeals, a common order is being issued.3. Short question which falls for consideration in these cases is whether 'Fly ash' produced during the course of burning of pulverised coal (Powdered coal) is liable to duty under Tariff Item 68 or not.4. Contention of the learned advocate from Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board is that fly ash is not 'goods' and as such cannot be treated as excisable. It is merely a waste pr...
South India (Corpn.) (Agencies) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT124TriDel
1. The question that arises for decision in the 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 'Capacitors and Coils' for exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 211/76-Cus. The goods were imported under Bill of Entry Cash No. 1705, dated 26-7-1979.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim of the appellants for refund of customs duty holding that goods were not entitled to the benefit of said Notification. The Appellate Collector uphold the same by his order despatched on 4-10-1980 as unsubstantiated.3. We heard Shri K.K. Koshy, Dy. Manager of the appellants. Shri Koshy reiterating the contents of the revision application submitted that goods in question 'Capacitors & Coils' are covered by NMI and DE certificates. He further stated that the appellants have been importing consumables like 'Capacitors & Coils' and obtained necessary documents cove...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »