Delhi Court January 1988 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.
Sundari Surti Stores Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC378Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants were a partnership firm. They, manufactured branded chewing tobacco. They marketed it through another partnership firm of sole selling agents, M/s. Sundari Sales Corporation, They submitted price lists for the quarters ending 31-03-1975 and 30-09-1975 on the basis of discount of 25% and 20%, respectively. The departmental officers approved these price lists. When the new Section 4 came into force w.e.f. 01-10-1975, with its concept of 'related person', the Appellants submitted a price list in Part-IV and claimed the discount of 15%. Part-IV proforma of the price list applied to cases where the manufacturer sold his products to or through a related person in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. The Appellants declared the discount of 15% in their price list. The price list as submitted, was approved by the departmental officers. Later on, their investigation revealed that the sole selling agent of the Appellants was not allowing the discount uniformally at the declare...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. National Research Development Corpo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi366; 34(1988)DLT176; 1988RLR221
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. (1) This writ petition has been filed on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi for challenging certain directions given in the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 9th September, 1985 whereby learned Additional District Judge quashed the assessment order dated 14th September, 1984 enhancing ratable value partly with effect from 14th June, 1979 and again revising it from 30th November, 1981. (2) Learned Additional District Judge basically set aside the assessment order on the ground that it contains no reasons. While passing the impugned order quashing assessment order dared 14th September, 1984, learned Additional District Judge also directed that while passing the assessment order again the assessing authority will not take into account cost of the machinery, (3) The assesses had also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 741/ 86 challenging bill dated 17th September, 1985 which had been issued in spite of the appellate order dated 9th September, 1985. Tha...
India Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported 3 consignments of 45 MT of Aluminium Foils for strip packing of their products as per their approved programme.The consignments were made in three partial shipments covered by (i) IG Item No. 744/116 BE Cash No. 153, dated 1.8.1980; (ii) IGM/Item No.967/33 BE Cash No. 438, dated 4.2.1981; and (iii) IGM/Item No. 1234/19 BE Cash No. 3795, dated 30.1.1981. The materials were held up by the assessing officers who disputed about the thickness of aluminium foils covered by the first consignment. The clearing agents had, therefore, to clear the consignments on payment of full duty. The appellants could not execute a bond needed for assessment under the Customs Notification 204/205-Cus., dated 3.10.1979. When the appellants applied for re-assessment and consequential relief, the Assistant Collector rejected the same on the ground that the importers had not executed a bond as required by the said notification. On appeal, under the impugned order, the Collector of Cus...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Abeline Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC233
1. The dispute in the present matter is as to the correct classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule being referred to hereinafter as the CET), of impregnated glass fabrics (the original dispute covered also impregnated asbestos fabrics but their classification is not in issue in these proceedings). Glass fabric is passed through a trough containing phenol formaldehyde resin or a similar product of desired density, and then the impregnated fabric is passed through a drier. The respondents claimed that the goods were classifiable under Item No.15A, CET on the ground that the plastic material contents (60%) predominated. The Assistant Collector classified the goods under Item No. 22B, CET. In appeal, by order dated 27-3-1981, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, held that the goods were classifiable under Item No. 22F, CET, prior to 1-3-1979 and that on and from 1-3-1979, they were classifiable under Item No. 22B because of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Escorts Employees' Welfare Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR105(Delhi)
1. These two application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertain to the assessment years 1979-80 cand 1980-81, respectively. The petitioner prays herein that we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the two question of law. 2. For the previous assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, this court, by an order dated May 27, 1987, in I.T.C's Nos. 158 to 161 of 1985 (see page 106 infra) directed the Tribunal 'to make a consolidated statement of case' and 'refer for the decision of this Court' identical questions of law. We are informed that the assessed challenged this order by way of a special leave petition, but the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on November 3, 1987 (see [1988] 169 ITR (St.) 12). 3. Mr. Bishamber Lal has strenuously argued that the present applications should be rejected as question No. 1 is squarely covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Eternal Science of Man's Society : [1981]128ITR456(Delhi) and the answer to ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Amar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ74
(1) In all the above appeals, the acquittal of the respondents for offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short the Act) has been challenged. A preliminary objection, however, has been raised by the respondents that the appeals are barred by limitation as the applications seeking special leave to appeal were filed after the expiry of sixty days computed from the date of the orders of acquittal. The case of the appellants is that the applications are to be held to have been filed by a public servant and, thereforee, those could have been and were in fact filed within six months of the dates of orders of acquittal.(2) It is also admitted that in all these cases the Food Inspectors of the Corporation had lifted the samples for analysis after 1st April, 1976. This date is relevant as Section 20 of the said Act was amended w.e.f. that date. Prior to the amendment, the Corporation being the local authority', was entitled to in...
V.P. Mathur Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT448; 1999(48)DRJ402
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition could be stated briefly thus: On the 2nd of February, 1964, the petitioner joined the Indian Army as Emergency Commissioned Officer. On the 31st of August, 1968, he was released from the Indian Army. On the 11th of December, 1971, the petitioner applied for the grant of Special Short Commission in the Indian Army. On the 18th of December, 1971, the Army Headquarters informed the petitioner that he had been selected. The letter dated 18.12.1971 reads as under:- 'Reference your application dated 11 Dec 71 for grant of Special Short Commission. 2.You have been selected for grant of Special Service Commission subject to your being placed in SI.H1 A1 E1 by the Medical Board. You should now report to the Military Hospital Bareilly for Medical Board. 3.In case you are placed in Medical Category B1 H1 A1 P1 E1 you should report to Eme School Baroda with five days of the completion of Medical Board. You wi...
Manufacturers Coop. Ind. Est. Vs. Lt. Governor, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 1988RLR218
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.(1) 0NE Narinder Nath D. Puri was member of petitioner Co-op. Society. He died on 24.3.1970. Thereafter his son, Man Mohan Nath N. Puri wanted to be substituted in place of the deceased father. Claim was based, inter-alia, on the ground. that he was nominee of his father. The fact that Man Mohan Nath N. Puri was nominee of his father is not disputed. (2) Since the Society was not willing to give benefit of the nomination, Man Mohan Nath N. Puri made an application in March, 1976 before the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Delhi, challenging the decision of the petitioner society of returning the dues of his father to him and treating him as an expelled member. The Registrar found that it is a dispute which falls within S. 60 of Delhi Co-op. Societies Act, 1972 and accordingly vide order dt. 28.11.1978 directed that the dispute is liable to be referred u/s 60 of the Act and referred it to an arbitrator u/s 61(1)(c) of the Act. The Registrar also passed interim order t...
Harbans Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Gursharan Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ364
H.C. Goel, J. 1. Gursharan Kaur, respondent No. 1, was married to one Gurharshan Singh, son of the present petitioners. Harbans Singh and Smt. Darshan Kaur, according to Hindu rites on July 12, 1981. Gursharan Kaur lived at the house of her husband and parents-in law in Delhi some time up to July, 1983. Gursharan Kaur filed a complaint against her husband Gurdarshan Singh and her two parents-in-law who are the present petitioners, under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('The Act' for short). It was alleged by her that her parents had given a number of household articles and jewellery and some cash in Installments to the three accused persons, namely her husband, Gurcharan Singh, and her both parents-in-law at the time of her marriage. The three accused persons made demands for giving cash as dowry by the parents of the complainant at the time of her marriage with Gursharan Singh. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- in all was paid by her parents to Gursharan Singh in two Installments of R...
Mohan Lal Ram Kumar Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT469TriDel
1. The issue arising for determination in this appeal is whether the product named "Kapoori Tambaku Pan Masala" manufactured by the appellants fell for classification, at the relevant time, under Item No. 4(II)(5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (CET, for short) as chewing tobacco or under the residuary Item No. 68 ("all other goods not elsewhere specified"). The lower authorities have held against the appellants and classified the goods under Item No. 4 II(5) of the CET and hence the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri S.P. Bhatnagar, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, D.R., for the respondent and have read the record.3. At the outset, it was pointed out to Sh. Bhatnagar that though two affidavits of recent origin have been filed by the appellants, no steps had been taken by them by way of a proper application for their reception as additional evidence. The counsel thereupon stated that he would not be relying on these affidavits.4. The prod...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »