Delhi Court March 1995 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.
Surekha Coated Tubes and Steels Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT625TriDel
1. This is a Stay Application filed by M/s. Surekha Coated Tubes & Steels Ltd. seeking waiver of predeposit of a sum of Rs. 94,86,306 adjudged as customs duty payable by them vide Order-in-Original No.11/94 CAC, dated 29-10-1993 passed by Collector of Customs, Bombay. The duty has been demanded on the ground that for the goods imported by them against an Advance Licence and DEEC Book they did not satisfy the conditions of exemption Notification No. 116/88, dated 30-3-1988 as the goods imported by them did not have the same characteristic techincal specfication as those used in the "resultant product" exported by them.The amount was held to be recoverable from them in terms of the undertaking furnished by them at the time of clearance of the goods.Confiscation of the goods in terms of Section lll(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and penal action under Section 112 ibid was however held to be not warranted.2. We have heard exhaustive arguments on the prima facie merits of the case advanced by...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jayant Oil Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT360TriDel
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification of dehydrated castor oil Monomeric and polymeric and their eligibility to Notification 69-C of 1984. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had held that these products are classifiable under Tariff Item 12 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were not eligible for benefit of notification.2. We have heard Shri V.C. Bhartiya, JDR for the department and Shri R.Nambirajan, advocate for the respondent.3. In his order, the Collector (Appeals) had noted that the products are obtained by cracking castor oil at 360C. He considered the claim of the manufacturer, the cracking was nothing but heat treatment. He has described the process as under : "Castor oil is taken into a closed vessel and is heated under vacuum so that dehydration is started. Then catalyst is added to enhance the rate of dehydration when dehydration is completed the mass is discharged in cooling vessel where carbon and fuller earth are added to f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sita Ram Vijay Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR526(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer to this court for its opinion, the following question of law, relevant to the assessment year 1984-85 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting from the assessable income for the assessment year 1984-85, the unexplained amount of Rs. 7 lakhs ?'2. The facts relating to the question proposed to be referred by the Revenue are that in the bank accounts of the assessee-firm with the Vysya Bank and the Vijaya Bank credits aggregating to Rs. 7 lakhs were found. The assessed tried to explain that the credits represented cash sales made by the assessee. The aforesaid Explanationn of the assessed was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was added as unexplained investment from undisclosed sources. The a...
Kiran Parkash Vs. Vishwa Nath Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT250; 1995RLR373
Arun Kumar, J.(1) By this petition, the petitioner landlord has challenged an order dated 29/10/1994 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code to implead Shree Krishna Sangeet Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mahavidyalaya') throughSmt. Sarvada Acharya, Principal/Superintendent as a party. The petitioner landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against Vishwa Nath Sharma,respondent. Vishwa Nath Sharma filed an application dated 9/04/1994 for leave to defend the eviction petition under Section 25B(5) of the Act through Smt.Sarvada Acharya acting as attorney on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma. The affidavit m support of the said application was also filed by the same Smt. SarvadaAcharya. This application was filed through Shri Inderjit Singh,Advocate. During the pendency of the said application for leave to defend, ...
Kanshi Ram Vs. O.P. Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)1; 1995CriLJ2620; 58(1995)DLT605; 1995(33)DRJ490; 1995RLR364
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This matter has been on board, nobody has been appearing on behalf of the parties. In the circumstances, I had appointed Mr.R P Luthra, Advocate, as amices curiae in the matter. (2) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 18.8.1980. Mr.Luthra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 3.3.1977 respondent No.1, O P Chopra, Inspector Customs (Preventive), produced the petitioner in custody before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and applied for his remand for four days on the ground that certain smuggled gold was recovered from one Kailash Nath on 2.3.1977, who has disclosed that he had obtained the same from the petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on 2.3.1977 when he was allegedly beaten between 12.30 a.m. to 4.00 a.m during the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd March, 1977 and produced before the Magistrate on 3.3.1977. Petitioner opposed the applicatio...
Singhal Paints Pvt Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT22TriDel
1. M/s. Singhal Paints Pvt. Ltd. have filed this appeal against Order-in-original No. MP(23/89) 16 of 1990, dated 20-9-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad whereby he had confiscated the quantities mentioned in the order of Enamels, Primer and N.C. lacquers totally valued at Rs. 28,85,985.36 giving them the option to redeem them on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 44,605. Duty was to be paid at the time of clearance. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed by him under Rules 52A and 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.In addition, duty of Rs. 35,311.94 was demanded on certain quantities of knifing putty, varnish, insulating varnish and primer found short in their stocks. As the goods Enamels, Primer and V.C. lacquers had been released on provisional basis, the amount adjudged as redemption fine was ordered to be appropriated against the Bank guarantee.2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations of shortage and exces...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Protectron Electronics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT233TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7-7-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. The Department has challenged the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that - (1) Co-axial Connectors (RF), I.C. Sockets (1 MM PCB Mounting P8001), (3) I.C.Sockets and (4) Patch cord (1 MM P8006) cannot be deemed as plug/sockets and, therefore, they could not be deemed as not covered by the exclusion against Sl. No. 13 in the Table annexed to the Notification 160/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue, Shri Somesh Arora, JDR submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that the parts in question were not plugs/sockets which are specifically excluded from the purview of the exemption under Notification 160/86 in terms of exclusion clause against Sl. No. 13 of the Table annexed thereto. He stated that from the relevant catalogue published by the respondents in respect of I.C. Socket, Co-axial Connector, Socket 1 MM, it is evident that these...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. K.B. Investment and Finance Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD410(Delhi)
1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee and one by the revenue, relating to assessment year 1981-82 are disposed of by this consolidated order. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri O.P.Vaish and the learned D.R. Shri Abrar Ahmed have been heard and records perused. Relevant facts are that assessee is an investment company.Earlier ihe company was doing banking business before the same was acquired by the State Bank of India in 1974. The realisation of the advances was not taken over by the State Bank of India and as such assessee continued to be engaged in the business of realisation of such advances. The assessee has also been advancing loans as a business activity.2. It seems that certain dispute arose between Smt. Madhavrao Scindia and Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia in regard to various properties and assets owned by the HUF and companies, namely, Scindia Investment P.Ltd., K.B. Bank Ltd., Scindia Potteries P. Ltd. and Manjri Stud Farms.The dispute was referred to the sole arbi...
Mannesmann Demag A.G. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD533(Delhi)
The decision of the assessing officer which was in consonance with the decision of a High Court and Tribunal could not be said to be erroneous.In the present case the assessing officer had taken into account the past history of the case. He had made proper enquiries and had taken a view which was in consonance with the view expressed by the High Court and the several decisions of the Tribunal. Therefore, the decision of the assessing officer could not be said to be erroneous.Revision under s. 263--ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ORDER--Possibility of a view contrary to that taken by the assessing officer.Order of assessing officer cannot be termed as erroneous merely because there is possibility of a view contrary to view taken by assessing officer.When in the past receipts were held not to be taxable and the assessing officer had properly applied his mind to the amended provisions of the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement between the two related countries and reached to a possible conc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT760; 1995(34)DRJ69; [1995]215ITR631(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the Revenue, praying for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, to state a case and to refer to this court for its opinion the following questions stated to be questions of law relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,77,99,414 received by the assessed as price of cement and retained by it under the orders of the Delhi High Court was not liable to be included in the assessor's income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Departmental appeal only on the ground that the order under section 263 cancelling the earlier order of the Assessing Officer was set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal without taking into account ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »