Delhi Court December 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 57 results (0.020 seconds)Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT631TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 28.4.1978 the Central Government issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 a Notification No. 198/78 exempting sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on 1.5.1978 and ending on 30.9.1978, which was in excess of the average production of sugar during the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was specified in the notification. We are concerned in the present proceedings with free sale sugar. The quantum of exemption for such sugar was specified in the notification as Rs. 54/- per quintal. The appellant manufactured in the sugar year 1977-78 sugar in excess of the average products in the preceding three years.On 31.7.1.988, the appellant fi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Decora Ceramics Private Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC58
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot (hereinafter called the appellant) against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.T-332-333/RKT-27-28/85 dated 31-3-1985, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi at Bombay, whereby he allowed the two appeals filed by M/s. Decora Ceramics (P) Ltd., Rajkot (the respondents before us) against two orders-No. V-23 B(14) 1/84/MP/REF-CE HI/9078, dated 24-9-1984 and No. V-23 B(4) l-MP/83/1653, dated 11-2-1985-passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot.By the first order, the Assistant Collector denied to the respondents the benefit of duty exemption under Central Excise Notification No.83/83 and rejected the claim for re-fund of duty amounting to Rs. 4,95,509.74. By the second order, the Assistant Collector confirmed a demand for duty amounting to Rs. 4,98,635.73 p from the respondents.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of China and Pore...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pharmaceutical Capsules
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC137
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1, against Order No. M-2430-2431/ BI-879-88Q/84 dated 18th December, 1984, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. It is stated that the respondents are manufacturers of Empty Hard Gelatine Capsules. They had filed. a classification list in respect of this product and claimed exemption for it as a drug intermediate, as per Notification No. 62/1978. The classification list was approved accordingly. Later on, however, it was considered that empty gelatine capsules were not "drug intermediate" and that the respondents were not eligible for exemption. Accordingly, a show-cause-cum-demand notice was issued to the respondents on 24th November, 1978, making a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,36,530.45 for the period from July to October, 1978. The demand notice was confirmed by the Assistant Collector on 7th October, 1981, holding that gelatine capsules are used principally as containers/carriers fo...
Tag this Judgment!Gurnir Singh Gill and Another Vs. Saz International P. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]62ITR197(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These are interim applications in C.P. No. 35 of 1985. The company petition has been filed by Sri G. S. Gill and his mother, Surjit Kaur (who are hereinafter referred to as P-1 and P-2, respectively), under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, in respect of the affairs of a company known as Saz International Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' which is the first respondent in the petition). But the three real respondents against whom acts of oppression and mismanagement are alleged are the following : Respondent No. 2(R-2) : Mrs. Adarsh Kaur Gill, the sister of P-2. Respondent No. 3(R-3) : Mr. G. C. Mittal, a friend of the family and an advocate by profession. Respondent No. 4 (R-4) : Mrs. Noorien Kaur Gill Nanlaer, the daughter of R-2. 2. The two sisters, Surjit and Adarsh (P-2 and R-2), migrated from India several years ago. They are said to have married two brothers in Panama, Central America, and thereafter continued to live toget...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas769(Delhi)
Rajinder Sachar, C.J.1. This and the connected writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Chapter II-C read with section 58B (5A) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, introduced by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 1 of 1984) (to be called 'the impugned legislation'). They would be disposed of by this common judgment. The main averments of facts are being taken from this petition for illustrative purpose, otherwise the arguments on questions of law are all common. The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of the said Chapter, particularly section 45S read with section 58B (5A) are vocative of the petitioner1`s fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also challenges the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the said impugned provisions. 2. The newly incorporated section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India Act provides that no individual or firm or an unincorporated association of individu...
Tag this Judgment!Deen Dayal Goyal Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-c, and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Del)1; [1986]158ITR391(Delhi); 1986RLR124
Ranganathan, J.1. These are three appeals under section 269H(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), from orders passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 269G of the said Act. The short but difficult question that has come up for our consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it has no power to condone the delay in the filing of an appeal before it under section 269G, where the appeal as well as the application for condensation of delay in the filing of the appeal have been presented beyond the period mentioned in section 269G(1).2. A brief factual background may be given. In ITSA Nos. 4 and 5 of 1976, on March 29, 1975, the Competent Authority (as defined in section 269A(b) of the Act) passed two orders under section 269F(6) for the acquisition of two equal moities of a property in Greater Kailash, New Delhi. These orders were served on the appellants on April 3, 1975. The above moities had been transferred by Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Kela Devi and ors. Vs. Ram Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1985)ACC50; AIR1986Delhi52; 29(1986)DLT184; 1986(10)DRJ186
S.B. Wad. J. (1) On May 9, 1985 I pronounced an order in this appeal, holding M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., liable to pay Rs. 1,25,000;- towards compensation. In this order I had observed that the bus was comprehensively insured with Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company took the liability on itself to contest the claim on behalf of all the respondents and it filed a written statement on behalf of all the respondents. The liability for the payment of compensation is, thereforee, of Respondent No. 3.(2) The counsel for the Insurance Company appeared before me and stated that the Insurance Company have preferred an appeal against the said order to the Division Bench and that the Division Bench desired that he should re-agitate the point of the liability of the Insurance Company before me. The appeal was, thereforee, re-listed for arguments on this short point. (3) Mr. Sabharwal, appearing for the Insurance Company, submits that it was the liability of th...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT354
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present appeal is directed against a judgment of Shri K S. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Four persons including the present appellants were charged in respect of commission of officers punishable under section 392 read with section 397 JPC. He convicted each of the appellants for an offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default of payment of which fine, he had to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hukam Chand coaccused was acquitted while the remaining co-accused Hari Siagh was convicted in respect of commission of an offence punishable under section 411 Jpc and was awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine ofRs. 100.00 in default of payment of which he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.(2) The case of the prosecution briefly is as follows. On 19/12/1981, ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijender Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1183; 29(1986)DLT118
Aggarwal, J.(1) This order shall dispose of Criminal Writ No. 211 of 1985, Criminal Writ No. 212 of 1985, Criminal Writ No. 225 of 1985 and Criminal Writ No. 231 of 1985. Since all these petitions arise out of the same transaction we have decided to hear them together and dispose them of by one order. The relevant facts concerning each writ petition, we shall discuss separately. (2) On 2nd July 1985 an information was received in the office of the Enforcement Directorate that Vijendar Kumar Jam along with Sundar Lal Baid and Uttam Prakash was likely to carry a huge amount of foreign exchange to Hongkong by Atitalia Flight No. AZ-786 which was to take off at 1.15 A.M. from Palam Airport on 3rd July 1985. The information further was that the foreign exchange was to be supplied to the aforesaid three persons after crossing the customs and security checks by some one. (3) Acting upon this information a team of officers from the Enforcement Directorate stationed themselves at various spots ...
Tag this Judgment!Video Electronics Private Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC694Tri(Delhi)
1. An appeal, No. 548 of 1980-NRB, preferred by M/s. Video Electronics (P) Ltd., was dismissed by this Tribunal under its order dated 24.4.1984. The present application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is for referring to the High Court for questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of this order of the Tribunal. This application was received on 27.9.1985. Under Section 35G of the Act, the application for reference should be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal under Section 35C, time in proper cases being extendable by a further 30 days. Since the present application was filed on 27.9.1985, though the order in appeal had been received on 7.5.1984, an application for condonation of delay has been filed.2. The application for condonation of delay recites the facts on the basis of which condonation is sought for. It is stated that on receipt of the Tribunal's order on 7.5.1984, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!