Delhi Court August 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.
Bright Pharmaceutical Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT244TriDel
1. We have heard Sh. M. Venkataraman, Advocate for the Appellants and Mrs. J.K. Chander, JDR for the respondent and have perused the available papers.2. Sh. Venkataraman submits that though Revenue granted the appellants inspection of documents for 43 days; the records being voluminous, they could not complete the inspection of documents relied on by Revenue in support of the show-cause notice and for this reason they could not file reply to the show cause notice. Further the appellants had not waived personal hearing. As, in the aforesaid circumstances, they could not file reply to the show cause notice; it was not possible for the appellants to say that they wanted personal hearing. But failure to do so does not mean that the appellants had waived personal hearing.3. Sh. Venkataraman stated that in 43 days' of inspection, 2 hours devoted every day for this purpose; of these 2 hours, nearly an hour was spent in arranging and locating the records. The effective inspection every day wa...
Hydrocarbons India Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD203(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals), for the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee-company is a 100% subsidiary of ONGC. The relevant accounting year is the calendar year 1972 starting from 1-1-1972 to 31-12-1972. The assessee-company had been assigned a contract by the ONGC in which the latter had joined hands with M/s. AGIP of Italy and Phillips Petroleum Go. of USA for exploration, development and production of oil in Iran. These three parties had entered into a contract in 1965 with a National Iranian Oil Co. The terms of the contract were that these three companies will do exploration at their own expenses and on discovery of oil the development and production sales will start in which the National Iranian Oil Co. ("NIOC" in short) was to participate to the extent of 50% in expenses as well as in the share of the oil produced. For operation of this agreement a nonprofit company called Iranian Marine International Oil Co. ("IMINOCO" in...
Arun Shourie Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD533(Delhi)
1. The assessee is an individual. He derived income, inter alia, from salary and interest from bank, FDRs, deposits with companies, UTI, etc.The interest derived by the assessee from FDRs with the banks during the accounting' period, aggregated to Rs. 22,551 as against the said FDRs the assessee had borrowed funds and advanced them to his HUF from which no interest was charged by the assessee. On such borrowings from the bank Rs. 7,685 were paid by the assessee by way of interest. The assessee set off the said interest of Rs. 7,685 against the interest earned by the assessee from the said FDRs. The aforesaid claim of the assessee was rejected by the ITO as untenable. On appeal, the learned AAC confirmed the order of the ITO. It is against the aforesaid con current finding of the authorities below that the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.2. On behalf of the assessee the learned counsel submitted that the assessee's claim was allowable Under Section 56(3) of the Income-tax...
Chander Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT245
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The appellant was charged, convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under sections 363 Ipc, 366 Ipc and 376 IPC. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. The sentence of imprisonment passed under section 363 is 2 years, the sentence passed under section 366 Indian Penal Code is 3 years and the sentence passed under section 376 Indian Penal Code is 10 years. The appellant was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 under section 376 Indian Penal Code in default of payment of which he was required to undergo further R.I. for two years. (2) The allegation against the appellant is that he kidnapped the victim Kumari Geeta, daughter of Vir Bahadur (Public Witness 10) on 11th June 1984 in village Kotia, Police Station Kalyanpuri, without the consent of the guardian and that this kidnapping was do(3) The facts are that the appellant, who was also working as Chowkidar in the area, was having intimate relations with the family of Geeta vic...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Beant Kaw
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1987RLR537
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The appellant has come up in appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (the 'Act'), against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, asking for the dismissal of the application for grant of compensation. The respondent has also filed cross objections (CM 1304/84) praying for enhancement of compensation.(2) On 20.3.70 at about 8.30 Am Swaran Singh (deceased) was crossing Najafgarh Road and when he reached near stationery Bus No. DLP-1239, another Bus No. DLP-614 overtook this stationery Bus No. DLP-1239. Bus No. 614 was being driven by Gugan Ram. According to the respondents because of rash and negligent driving of Gugan Ram the bus driven by him struck into Bus No. DLP-1239 and in the process Swaran Singh was sandwitched between the two buses. Swaran Singh died on the spot. Both the buses are owned by the appellant. (3) The widow, four children and the mother of the deceased filed an application u/s 110-A of the Act for award of a sum of Rs....
Vijay Srivastava Vs. Mirahul Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi140; ILR1987Delhi51; 1988RLR7
N.C. Kochhar, J. (1) This older will also dispose of I.A. 1365 of 1986 in Suit No. 450 ofJ986 filed by Rear Admiral KLshi RaJ Sood (the plaintiff in the other suit). (2) The facts giving rise to this application (J.A. 1367186) and 7.A. No. 1365186 (the other I.A.) in Suit No. 450186 (the other suit) are that Suit. Vijay Srivastava (the plaintiff) had filed this suit on 25th February 1986 in this High Court and on the same day, the plaintiff in the other suit filed the other suit in this court. The cases set up by the plaintiffs in these suits arc as under : (3) M/S. Miranul Enterprises (the defendant No. 1) is a partnership firm with Shri S. B. Kishore (defendant No. 2) as its managing partner and Smt. Kusum Kishore wife of Shri S.B. Kishore, Shri Rahul Kishore son of Shri S.B. Kishore and M/s. Simira Kishore daughter of Shri S.B. Kishore (hereinafter to be referred as defendants No. 3 to 5 respectively) are its other partners. Defendant No. I was engaged in the business of promoters a...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Beant Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC421
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The appellant has come Up in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. 5 of 1939), (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, asking for the dismissal of the application for grant of compensation. The respondent has also filed cross objections (CM 1304/84) praying for enhancement of compensation.2. On 20th March 1970 at about 8.30 A.M. Swaran Singh (deceased) was crossing Najafgarh Road and when he reached near stationery Bus No. DLP-1239, another Bus No. DLP-614 overtook this stationery Bus No. DLP-1239. Bus No. DLP-614 was being driven by Gugan Ram. According to the respondents because of rash and negligent driving of Gugan Ram the bus driven by him struck into Bus No. DLP-1239 and in the process Swaran Singh was sandwitched between the two buses. Swaran Singh died on the spot. Both the buses are owned by the appellant.3. The widow, four children and the mother of the deceased filed an ...
Ranutrol Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC135
1. The appellants imported Calibration & Testing Equipment under Bill of Entry No. 2581/311. The goods were assessed to customs duty under Heading 9031.20. The importers claimed that the goods should be extended the benefit of Notification No. 118/86-Cus. on the ground that the imported goods were measuring and checking instruments.2. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim for the notification as on perusal of the invoice he found that the imported goods comprised complete equipment consisting of Gas Flow equipment, Leakage Test equipment and Calibration and Flow rate equipment. He held that basically the function of the equipment was to calibrate and to test and not to measure anything, according to the leaflet produced by the importers. The Asstt. Collector's view was based on the ground that these equipments were parts of a complete system and could not work independently. In the opinion of the Asstt. Collector, even if the instruments could work individually the function of t...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hathwa Metals and Tubes Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT428TriDel
1. These two appeals emanate from a common order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Hathwa Metals & Tubes imported, under a Bill of Entry, 4 items of machinery accessories and spares namely :- (i) One unit of Hydraulic Extrusion Press (which has been considered to be the main machinery), They claimed assessment of the goods under Heading 84.45/48 CTA read with Notification No. 40/78-Cus.3. In respect of item (i), the Customs extended the benefit of the Notification at the time of clearance. There was and is no dispute about this item. The next 2 items were assessed on merits without the benefit of Notification No. 40/78.4. In respect of item (iv) however the Assistant Collector ordered assessment at the highest rate applicable in terms of Section 19 of the Customs Act on the ground that separate individual values were not available for the spares covered by this item.5. M/s. Hathwa...
Bharat George Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT112TriDel
1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods imported by the appellants, described in the Bill of Entry as "Automatic Crank Shaft Milling Machine" is the same as "Rotary Milling Machine" for "Crank Shaft" and whether, consequently, they are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Customs.2. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims of the appellants for eligibility to the notification on the ground that "Rotary Milling Machine" has got provisions wherein Cutters and Table holding the work rotates continuously. Besides, it has got a fixture which help the continuous milling of Crank Shaft. According to the Assistant Collector these fixtures are not found in the imported machine, which is only a Milling Machine for Crank Shaft. The Assistant Collector relied on an extract from 'Engineering Encyclopaedia' (page 1087) which gave the salient features of "Rotary Milling Machines".3. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) took the view that the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »