Delhi Court June 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 28 results (0.024 seconds)K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. Vs. Khosla Extrakting Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi181; ILR1985Delhi416
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The plaintiff, a public limited company, has filed this suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using, trading or carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Khosla Extraktions Limited and or making public issue under this name. There are three defendants. Defendant No. 1 is, of Extraktions Ltd. and Others. course, M/s Khosla Extraktions Ltd. Defendants Nos. 2 and are stated to be the' promoters and Directors of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 Naresh Chandra Bansal and defendant No. 3 is S. K. Khosla. With this suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants be similarly restrained from using, trading and carrying on business and from entering the capital market and making public issue under the name M/s Khosla Extraktions Ltd.(2) The pleadings in, the case are complete. Considerable arguments were addr...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. P.R Parekh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT706TriDel
1. This Order will also dispose of Appeal No. 1501/84-B in respect of the same party.2. The Appellant, Collector of Customs, Bombay, through this appeal to the Tribunal Challenges the order dated 21-8-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. By the said order, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) following a decision of CEGAT in the case of same party, Order No, C-421/84 dated 29th June 1984. M/s. P.R. Parekh, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay held that imported. Folly Balloon Catheters are Suction Catheters covered by Heading 32 of Notification No. 208/Cus/81.3. At the hearing of the appeal, Shri Rakesh Bhatia, Sr. Departmental Representative representing the appellants, prayed for adjournment urging that the appellant has to file certain additional documents and he has yet to obtain the same. Asked by the Bench as to what are the documents which he has to produce, Shri Bhatia said that one of the documents is Specialist Opinion about the Catheter which was availa...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Sethia Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi300
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner along with Amarjit Singh is facing trial for offences under Ss. 120B read with Ss. 420. 467, 468a nd 471 Indian Penal Code . and also for substantive offence punishable under Ss. 420 and 471 read with S. 467 Indian Penal Code . The charge sheet under S. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'the Code') was filed on 29-5-1985 in. the Court of the .Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short the CMM'), during the pendency of the present petition which is under S. 439 of the Code. (2) An F.I.R. being R.C. No. 1185 was registered on 1-3-1985 at 5.00 P.M. against the petitioner and others under Ss. 120B read with Ss. 420. 467, 468a nd 471 Indian Penal Code . This was under S. 154 of the Code. It is mentioned in this F.I.R. that the petitioner, an Indian national, based in the U.K. (London) was the Managing Director of certain group companies and during the period 1982-1984 conspired with certain employees. namely, Ashish Banarjee and Rajende...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Engineering and Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1734Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application field by M/s. B.K. Engineering & Company, Calcutta, on 1-6-1978 before the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking against the Order-in-appeal No. 513/CO/1977 dated 23-9-1977 passed by the appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, which on transfer to this Tribunal was treated as an appeal before this Tribunal and is now being disposed of accordingly.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of some information, the Central Excise Officers of Calcutta VII Division visited the factory of M/s. B.K. Engineering & Company (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) on 3-6-1974 and noticed that the appellants were manufacturing "24 Volts D.C. Armature" without obtaining L-4 licence from the Central Excise Department. According to the Officers those goods were liable to Central Excise duty under Item 30(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.On ex...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Textile (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)15ITD49(Delhi)
1. These are four appeals filed by the assessee. They arise out of the consolidated orders, both dated 4-2-1984 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. Two appeals relate to the penalty under Section 271(1)0) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and two to the penalty under Section 273 of the Act.2. The assessee Ravi Textile Co., 6926, Chandrawal Road, Delhi, is a private limited company. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, returns were due to be filed on or before 30-6-1970 and 30-6-1971, whereas the returns were actually filed by the assessee on 3-10-1972 and 20-12-1973, respectively, after a delay of 26 and 29 completed months, respectively. Accordingly, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) for both the years. For the assessment year 1970-71, the explanation of the assessee was that the accounts could not be closed because of certain unavoidable circumstances. For the assessment year 1971-...
Tag this Judgment!Yashpal Bhatia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT246; 1985(9)DRJ177
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) The petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order dated June 28, 1984 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, (who was duly authorised to pass the ordetion) in respect of the petitioner under Section 3(l) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the aug' mentation of foreign exchange. The petitioner has challenged the said order and his continued detention by a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are these : An information was received in December 1983 in the Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi that the petitioner along with his father Thakar Dass and brother Pramod Kumar have been indulging in illegal sale and purchase of foreign exchange in India and was also undertaking 'Hawala Monetary Transactions' between India and Afghanistan...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT844TriDel
1. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited is a public company limited by shares and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and dealing in Ayurvedic medicines/drugs and other allied products. Besides manufacturing Ayurvedic drugs/medicines, they also manufacture Surmas like Himalaya Surma, Moti Surma etc. and also Dant Manjans like Dant Manjan Lal, Dant Manjan Black, Dant Manjan White.2. Prior to March 1, 1975 'Dant Manjan Lal' manufactured by the appellant was considered to be a patent or proprietary medicine falling under Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but considered as not excisable to duty by virtue of the express exclusion in the description of the Tariff Item itself in favour of "medicines" which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani Sidha or Homoeopathic.3. Immediately after March 1, 1975, when a residuary item being Item No. 68 came to be introduced into the Central Excise Tariff Schedule for "All other goods, not elsewhere ...
Tag this Judgment!Unik Springs (India) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT456TriDel
1. In this matter, the facts, briefly, are that M/s. Unik Springs (India), Faridabad, claim that they are engaged primarily in carrying out certain jobs on behalf of various parties, apart from undertaking manufacture of Excisable goods on its own. Insofar as job work is concerned, it is pleaded by the appellants that this is done on spring steel flats, which are in the form of flat steel bars in lengths varying from 8 to 20 feet, which were received by the appellants after paying duty under Item 26-AA. These flat bars were subjected to the following processes in the factory of the appellants : (ii) Drilling of each piece with a hole in the centre, some pieces also being drilled with one or two holes at each end; and (iii) Subjection of such pieces after drilling to heat treatment in a furnace and subsequent immersion in quenching oil which brings about hardening and tempering of the bars.Appellants have pointed out that after undertaking the above job work, the products are returned ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Anil Chemicals (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC375Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay decided in his Order-in-Appeal No. M-2420/AUR-80/84, dated 4th December, 1984 that prilled ammonium nitrate was not liable to duty. The factory M/s. Anil Chemicals Pvt. Limited, Aurangabad buy ammonium nitrate of 75% to 82% and by the process of prilling concentrate, convert the ammonium nitrate to 99%. This process of concentration was held by the Assistant Callector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, to be a process of manufacture and he directed the factory to pay duty of Rs. 74,846.82 by his Order No. V. 68(4)-5/TB/84/1443, dated 21st February, 1984.2. The factory buys ammonium nitrate from M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers. This ammonium nitrate is cleared on payment of duty under item 68. The Asstt. Collector said that duty paid 75% concentrated ammonium nitrate melt is processed and converted into prilled ammonium nitrate. The ammonium nitrate melt cannot be used as such unless water is evaporated. The end-product manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Grauer and Weil (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC297Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 13/MP/83 dated 30-11-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Central Excise Preventive Officers of Bulsar Division paid a surprise visit on 30-1-1983 to the factory premises of M/s. Growel Chromates, a division of M/s. Grauer and Weil (India) Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") situated in plot No. 407, G.I.D.C., Vapi. It was found that Sodium Bichromate (falling under Item No. 14AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act - GET, for short - and for which they held a licence) manufactured by them was removed on payment of duty under gate passes for captive consumption to their chromic acid sections situated adjoining their manufacturing premises, for the manufacture of chromic acid flakes (falling under Item No. 68 GET). The chromic acid flakes were found to be manufactured with the aid of power and removed under the delivery challan...
Tag this Judgment!