Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 6 of about 214 results (0.020 seconds)Jaiswal Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT558TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur classifying Anti-creep bearing plates and Brake-blocks/brake-shoes manufactured by the respondents herein under Chapter sub-headings 7302.90 and 8607.00 respectively, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 10,49,630.70 p on these goods manufactured and cleared from the period from 12-3-1986 to 21-12-1987 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.2. The appellants claim for classification under sub-headings 7307.10 and 7303.10 as castings iron and steel with benefit of exemption under Notification 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 has been denied by the Revenue.3. Before us, the appellants who are represented by their Counsel Shri T. Vishwanathan, submit that the issue of classification of these goods is no longer res-integra as it has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Nagpur Engg. Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1993 (63) E.L.T. 699 wherein anti-creep bearing plates have been held to f...
Tag this Judgment!Brig. Gurbux Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1997Delhi252; [1998]230ITR166(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, pursuant to the direction under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question relating to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 16 1/2 should have been applied to net annual letting value by taking into account the actual expenses of repairs and collections or the statutory expenses under this held according to section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessed before us is an individual having a 1/4th interest in an immovable property known as 'Scindia House', New Delhi, wholly let out to 127 tenants. In his returns, under the Act, for the relevant years, the assessed declared the value of his share in the property at Rs. 7 lakhs for each of the years. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Wealth-tax Officer referred the matter of valuation ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.R. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1998]232ITR614(Delhi)
1. Admit. Heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue relies on a Division Bench decision on the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaideep Industries(1989) 180 ITR 81 : TC 25R.1186, according to which the provisions contained in sub-s. (4) of s. 80HHC would be mandatory; while learned counsel for the assessed relies on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs . Shivanand Electronics : [1994]209ITR63(Bom) , according to which such a provision would be directory. There is no decision rendered either by the Supreme Court or by the Delhi High Court touching the issue. We are, thereforee, of the opinion that the questions of law do arise from the order of the Tribunal calling for a reference of statement of the case to the High Court. 3. The petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following two questions for the opinion of the Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Link Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.S. Nizzer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)914; 68(1997)DLT387
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 Cpc has been filed on the allegations that by an order dated September 27, 1990 passed by the Division Bench of this Court Dda was directed to communicate to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order, the extent of the unearned increase payable by the petitioner to the DDA. The respondents have flouted the said order by not communicating the extent of the unearned increase to the petitioner within the stipulated time and even thereafter for a further period of more than six months. It is stated that recently when the petitioner's representative conveyed resentment about the disrespectful attitude towards the aforesaid order respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated May 15, 1991 calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,48,903.00 towards 50% unearned increase. The amount of unearned increase could at the...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)985; AIR1997Delhi17; 68(1997)DLT212; 1997(42)DRJ747
D.K. Jain, J. (1) The issue involved in this bunch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which we propose to dispose of by this common judgment, is identical. The petitioners have assailed the office order dated 20th October, 1995, issued by the Chief Engineer (COML) on behalf of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short the DESU), which announces the approval by the special officer, exercising powers of Delhi Electric Supply Committee (for short the DESC), the levy and recovery of fuel adjustment charges (hereinafter referred to as FAC) for different periods commencing from 1st October, 1993. For the sake of ready reference the impugned office order is reproduced hereunder :- 'DELHI Electric Supply Undertaking No.COI/5/Com.26/35/95-96/24 Dated 20.10.95 Office Order Subject : Recovery of Fac from various consumers from the period 1.10.93 to 1995-96. SPECIAL Officer exercising the powers of DESC/MCD vide decision No. 4874/GW/Corp, dated 11.10.95 has appro...
Tag this Judgment!Karambir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT507
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a revision directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 30th September, 1997. The case against the petitioner is that on23rd August, 1985 at about 2.10a.m. he Along with six other persons was planning to commit docoity. The accused was apprehended and one country made pistol Along with one cartridge is alleged to have been recovered from him.The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 500.00 . The matter was carried in appeal, but the conviction was maintained. ' However, the sentence was reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment. (2) I have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I find that the matter has been dealt with in a slip shod manner. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was noticed but no consideration was given to it. It was pointed out by the Counsel that ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbux Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT15; 1997(43)DRJ69
D.K. Jain, J. (1) At the instance of the assessee, pursuant to the direction under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, (for short the Act) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question relating to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77 :- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 16-1/2 should have been applied to net A.L.V. by taking into account the actual expenses of repairs and collections or the statutory actual expenses under this head according to Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'(2) The assessed before us in an individual having 1/4th interest in immovable property known as Scindia House, New Delhi, wholly let out to 127 tenants. In his returns, under the Act, for the relevant years, the assessed declared the value of his share in the property at Rs. 7 lacs for each of the years. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Wealth Tax Officer referred the matter of valuation to the Valuati...
Tag this Judgment!Shambu Dayal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT880
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails the allotment-cum-demand letter No. 39(14)/91/MP/ Np dated 24.9.1991, issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 3.29.000.00 as cost of the flat bearing No. 455-MIG, Mansarover Park, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the flat in question). (2) The respondent-DDA prepared and published a Scheme called 'Registration Scheme of New Pattern,1979 of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority 'providing the procedure for allotment of flats constructed by it. The petitioner got himself registered for the allotment of a flat under the said scheme and made an initial deposit of Rs. 4,500.00 . A draw was held on 18.2.1991 and vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 24.9.1991, the flat in question was allotted to the petitioner. The said allotment-cum-demand letter also indicated that the cost of the flat what was payable was Rs. 3,29,0...
Tag this Judgment!Rohitashwa Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)560; 68(1997)DLT911; 1997(43)DRJ743
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Petitioner has sought the following directions in his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 27th April, 1995: 'quashing the Chief Commissioner's Notification No.F.15(iii)/59-LSG dated 13th November, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Lt. Governor's subsequent notification No. F.4(19)/65-L&H; dated 9th August, 1966 under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the acquisition of the land including in khasra No.127 situated within the revenue estate of village Oldenpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi and the acquisition proceedings commenced or likely to commence by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications:' 'APPROPRIATEwrit, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to make the award and proceed with the acquisition proceedings and further not to dispossess the petitioners from his land/house property...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Singh Vs. National Building Construction Corporation, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997(42)DRJ507
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The petitioners have sought direction against the respondents to make payment due to them from 1.1.1986 till their repatriation to India on the basis of Ccs (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 announced by the Government of India and in accordance with the terms originally agreed upon at the time of deputation and directing the respondent Corporation to pay duty allowance and Da from the due dates announced by Government of India for admissibility of Da from 1982 onwards.(2) The petitioners were Engineers/officers recruited and appointed in the Central Public Works Department and were sent on deputation in the year 1992 and 1993, placing their services with respondent Corporation, which is a public sector undertaking, wholly under the control of Central Government. Number of other engineers similar to the petitioners were also placed at the disposal of the respondent Corporation to pursue their projects in India, Iraq and Libya, initially for a period of 2 years but the pe...
Tag this Judgment!