Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-1986
Reported in : (1986)(7)LC253Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. APPL/DLH/Raj/164/80 (Order No. 145-RAJ/83) dated 21-3-1983, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, confirming the Order No. 33/50 dated 3-10-1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Ajmer, arises in the following circumstances.2. On information, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise & Customs, Ajmer, searched the residential premises of the appellant on 28-1-1980 and seized the miscellaneous goods valued at Rs. 3,675/- and clothes & hosiery goods valued at Rs. 4,874/- alleged to be of foreign origin.Consequently, a show cause notice dated 4-3-1980 was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause and explain as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act and why further penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112, ibid for alleged contravention of Sections 11-C, 11-D and 11-E of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Clause 3 of Imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-1986
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC59Tri(Delhi)
1. The material in dispute in all these appeals is an article that the department calls a steel plate but which the importers call a mould.The department holds that these steel sheets would be assessable under Chapter 73 as plates of iron or steel, hot-rolled, or cold-rolled, whereas the assessees argued that Chapter 84 is the correct heading for it, because this is a mould and is a part of machinery. The goods that were imported were described variously by the different importers as stainless steel sheets or as flat moulds. At other times, they were described in invoices as stainless steel press plates; they have also been described simply as press plates. However, there is no need to record all the different names which these articles have been given, because one fact is uncontradicted and this is that the goods are flat rectangular pieces of stainless steel whose technical description can be given thus: 2.5 mm thickness, 3110 x 1270 mm length and width, made of martensitic steel, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-25-1986
Reported in : (1986)58CTR(Del)34; [1986]160ITR840(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These 41 ITCs can be disposed of by a common order. They arise out of assessments of the six applicants to income-tax for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, the relevant previous years being the immediately preceding financial years. It seems that all the applications preferred by the six applicants have not been placed before us and it is likely that some of their applications are still pending in this court but not yet listed or at earlier stages. However, the applications in the case of one of them, viz., Smt. Shakuntala Rajeshwar, are complete and, since the question involved in the case of all the applicants arises out of similar facts, we shall refer, in disposing of these applications, to the facts in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Rajeshwar, without discussing separately the position in regard to each of the other assesseds. The reasons given for the decision on the applications preferred by Smt. Shakuntala Rajeshwar will be applicable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Delhi363; 29(1986)DLT473; 1986RLR232
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned appeals succinctly are that the appellant is a tenant under the respondent Smt. Sushila Bhargava in respect of a portion comprising two rooms, one kitchen and common use of bath and latrine on the ground floor besides two rooms on the mezzanine floor of house No. 101-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The said house belongs to respondent No. 1 and Shri Raj Kumar Bhargava, respondent No. 2, is her husband. Way back in June 1969 the respondents filed an eviction petition against the appellant on two grounds, namely, (i) bona fide requirement of the landlady as residence for herself and members of her family dependent on her; and (ii) non-user of the demised premises by the appellant for a period of more than six months immediately before the date of the filing of the petition, falling under clauses Ce) & (d) respectively of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Later on, in Apri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-04-1986
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas153(Delhi); [1987(54)FLR261]; (1986)IILLJ354Del
H.L. Anand, J. 1. This petition article 226 of the Constitution by a former general manager of the U.K. branches of a nationalised bank, concurrently in-charge of its European operations, assails the purported termination of his service by the Bank on the ground of 'loss of confidence' in him, as a sequel to and as part of a shake up in the higher echelons of the Bank in the wake of the largest bankruptcy of an Asian business house in the U. K., and failure of certain other accounts, allegedly exposing the Bank to the risk of loss of millions of pounds, and raises some interesting, as indeed, difficult questions of law, in relation to service in public sector, as indeed, interaction between the principles of industrial jurisprudence and administrative law following recent constitutional developments in the treatment of public sector undertaking as instrumentalities of the State under article 12 of the Constitution. Some of the questions that the petition raises are perhaps not appropri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-28-1986
Reported in : ILR1986Delhi559
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 2 India Tourism. Development Corporation (for short I.T.D.C.) dated 11th December 1982 terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance to a directive of the Government under Article 96 of the Articles of Association of India Tourisra Development Corporation Limited. (2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. In 1947 the petitioner joined as a Receptionist in Government of India holders under the Directorate of Estates. Ministry of Works, Mines and Power and promoted as Assistant Manager, Hotel Janpth in 1959. In 904 Government of India created Janpath Hotels Limited and. His petitioner's services were loaned to Janpath. Hotel as Manager. In 1969 he was appointed Deputy Manager Ashoka Hotels Limited. In 1970 a decision was taken by the Government to merge Janpath Hotels Limited and Ashoka. Hotels Limited and thus the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-14-1986
Reported in : ILR1986Delhi158
B.N. Kripal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, Petitioner No. 1 and four other employees of the Delhi Transport Corporation Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC'), wherein the challenge is to the validity of Regulation 9(a) & (b) of D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and the termination of Services of Petitioners 2 to 4. 2. According to the petition, at the time of termination of their services, Petitioner No. 2 was working as a Conductor since 1969. Petitioner No. 3 was working as an A.T.I. since 1970 and Petitioner No. 4 was working as a Driver since 1974. All the said petitioners were permanent employees of the DTC. Petitioner No. 5 however, was on probation. The said Petitioners 2 to 4 are members of Petitioner No. 1, which is a recognised trade union of the workers employed with the DTC. 3. It is alleged that the DTC terminated the services of a driver and a cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-27-1986
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Del)298; [1986]159ITR750(Delhi); 1986RLR307
D.K. Kapur, C.J.1. This petition was heard after a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents. On considering the reply, we found that the petition could be disposed of without any further pleadings or affidavits. We accordingly heard both the learned counsels. We also found that the disposal of the petition could not be delayed. 2. We issue Rule D. B. and proceed to deal with the short point involved in the petition. The petitioner has challenged an order passed under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 23, 1982. The operative part of the order is that certain documents are retained in exercise of powers under section 131. The documents are as follows : 'Journal VouchersFile No. Period1. 1-10-1970 to 31-5-19812. 1-06-1981 to 30-9-1981Bank VouchersFile No. Period1. 1-10-1980 to 31-1-19812. 1-02-1981 to 30-3-19813. 1-05-1981 to 31-7-19814. 1-08-1981 to 30-9-1981.'3. The order was passed over three years ago. The point for decision is whether these documents can in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-13-1986
Reported in : ILR1986Delhi635b
J. D. Jain, J. (1) Both these appeals arise out of judgment dated 17th December 1984 of Rent Control Tribunal directing eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds under Clauses (a) and (e) of the proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The facts giving rise to these appeals in brief are that late Lt. Ge.n. T. R. Pahwa (Retd.) was the owner of property bearing No. D-318, defense Colony, New Delhi. He let out the same to the appellant-S. K. Gambhir by a registered lease- deed dated 1st July 1973 for a period of three years with effect from 10th July 1974. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 1,000 per month. However, a sum of Rs. 280 per month was to be deducted there from by the tenant out of the amount of Rs. 10,000 which had been given by the lessee as advance for electing structural changes in the demised premises It was agreed that the said amount would be adjusted over a period of three years by monthly deductions of Rs. 280. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-1986
Reported in : 30(1986)DLT431; 1987(12)DRJ58
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed by Banarsi Dass, son of Shri Bhag Mal, asserting that he is the sole owner of property No. 1/13-B, Hospital Road, Jangpura, New Delhi, which he acquired as a result of adjustment of his claims. It is asserted in the writ. petition that by purporting to review a revisional order by impugned order dated 31st January 1984, the Settlement Commissioner has gone wrong in re-opening matters. which had been closed in the year 1958. (2) The petitioner asserts that he along with his father migrated to India from District Gujrat, now in Pakistan, where he lived along with his. father and brothers in the year 1947. The father of the petitioner left landed property and house property in village Kala Shadian, Tehsil Phalia, and village. Chak Lakhia, Tebsil Phalia. It is asserted by the petitioner that the entire property was partitioned in Pakistan and the house situated in village Kala Shadian fell to the share of the petitioner, while the ho...
Tag this Judgment!