Delhi Court December 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.
Patna Estate Graphite Mining Co. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC14Tri(Delhi)
1. As these two appeals involve common question of law and facts, they are clubbed together. Hence, this is common order.2. Subject of challenge in Appeal No. 1637/86-C is the demand of duty of Rs. 2,33,031.61 for the year 1979-80.3. Subject of challenge in Appeal No. 1638/86-C is the demand of duty of Rs. 2,04,782.19 for 1980-81.4. According to the Department, the appellants are manufacturer of Graphite Crucibles and Graphite powder. The clearances of their manufacturing product during the year 1979-80, according to the Department, was more than the value of Rs. 30 lacs and as such, they were called upon to pay duty under two different show cause notices dated 19.1.82 and 14.7.1982 respectively.5. Appellants among other things contended in their replies to the show cause notices that no duty is demandable in respect of Graphite crucible and Graphite powder by reason of Exemption Notification. They also urged that the demands are barred by time. Initially the Assistant Collector who h...
Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC8
1. As per Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30.4.1975, the Central Government Exempted goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Where such use was in a factory of a manufacturer, different from the factory where the goods had been manufactured, the exemption was allowable subject to the proper officer being satisfied that the goods were intended for such use. The case of the department is that appellants, who are manufacturers of sugar, also produced steam, an excisable product, and utilised it in the adjacent Distillery unit without payment of duty on such steam. It is alleged that they incorrectly availed of Notification No. 118/75.2. In the order-in-appeal against which the appellants are before us, it has been observed that fac...
Harish Chander @ Hari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes72; 37(1989)DLT265
Malik Sharif-Ud-Din, J. (1) The appellant has made a grievance against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 12th of May 1985 by which the appellant was convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code . and was awarded imprisonment for life. (2) The date of incident is 12th of February 1983 at 6.30 a.m. at Bhikam Singh Colony, Viswas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. The first informant is Public Witness . 8 Lal Mohammad (brother-in-law of Zarina, .deceased), Lal Mohmmad along with his wife Hasina was putting up in a Jhuggi at the said place and at a distance across the nullah. Shabir (P.W.10.) father of the deceased was residing in another Jhuggi along with his children. Deceased Zarina was the daughter of Shabir (P.W. 10), his another daughter Hasina is married to Lal Mohammad (P.W.8) who is also a first informant in this case. According to the first information which Lal Mohammad gave to the police at about 6.30 a.m. on 12th of February 1983 he was sleeping in his Jhug...
Harbhajan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ702; 1989(2)Crimes86; 37(1989)DLT246
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The petitioner through his wife has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ, orders or directions for quashing the detention order made on July Ii, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in smuggling activities and a subsequent declaration made on August 2, 1988, under Section 9 of the Cofeposa Act, by respondent No. 1. (2) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was stated to have come from Dubai in Air India Flight No. AI-890 on June 14, 1988, via Delhi for Bombay destination while the aircraft landed at Delhi the Customs Officers made queries from the petitioner who was sitting on seat No. 24-A as to whether he was smuggling any contraband. On his denying the same his seat was rummaged and one packet wrapped with Air India polythene bag was recovered from the cushion of the ...
Erukulangara Kunhumohamed Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes694; 37(1989)DLT292
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The petitioner is under detention in pursuance of an order of detention dated 9th March 1988 passed by the Government of Kerala under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act for short) on the view that the detention of the petitioner was necessary for preventing him, from abetting the smuggling of gold and dealing in smuggled gold otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold. The provisions thus of sub-sections (ii) and (iv) of Section 3(1) of Cofeposa Act were invoked. (2) The facts, as set out in the grounds of detention, reveal that one Thiruthy Mohamed Kutty landed at Trivendrum Airport on 27th June, 1987 from Sharjah and on suspicion his baggage was checked and one bed was found to contain, on being cut open, 43 gold biscuits and 3 gold coins, wrapped in separate coloured paper bit and covered with adhesive tape, totally weighing 5,009.500 gms. of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gulraj Educational Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: [1989]178ITR532(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. By these six different petitions, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi VI, New Delhi, wants this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') to state the case and refer it to this court for its decision. Since the contentions are common in all these petitions, these are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The question of law stated to be arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and sought to be referred is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act though there were infringements of section 13(1)(a) of the Act ?' 3. The petitioner is a trust registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The trust was created prior to the commencement of the Act. The Income-tax Officer made assessments in respect of all these years on varying amounts of total inc...
Sarvesh Chopra Vs. the General Manager, Northern Railways and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)ARBLR224(Delhi); 37(1989)DLT402
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) -THE petitioner was granted by respondent No. I work of construction of bored piles 500 mm dia by cast in Situ method for widening and raising of Pul Mithai (S) by agreement dated 27th April. 1985. The petitioner claims that the contract contains an arbitration clause 64(3)(a) whereunder matters in dispute or difference between the parties are to be referred to arbitration. The disputes of which reference is sought are set out in letter dated 31st March, 1986 (Annexure 'A' to the petition). (2) The respondent is contesting the claim of the petitioner particularly in regard to claims No. 3 to 6. The case of the respondent is that the said claims are not liable to be referred to arbitration in view of clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract read with the Special Conditions of Contract. The respondents have not pleaded that claims No. I and 2 are 'Excepted Matters' under clause 63 and there is no opposition to reference to arbitration being made in respect of...
Kashi Nath Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ310
G.C. Jain, J. (1) As measure of rehabilitation, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, formulated a policy reserving 7.5 percent of the oil product agencies i.e. Lpg Agency, petrol pumps and kerosene oil agencies, for certain categories of defense personnel. Pursuant to this policy Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No. 4, issued an advertisement on or about 9/10/l985 inviting applications for awardinag. distributorship of Indane for Buxar, District Bhojpur, Bihar, from amongst the candidates belonging to (i) defense Personnel who are permanently and severely disabled either in war or in military duty during peace time, (ii) Widows and motherless dependents of defense Personnel whose husbands/guardians are killed while on military duty either in war or peace, (iii) Extremely deserving cases of ex-servicemen who have no means of livelihood. The advertisement prescribed the following eligibility conditions: (A)Indian by Nationality; (b) Not less than 21 years of ...
Ramesh Chander and anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR731]; ILR1988Delhi467
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a substantial question of law as to the virus of proviso (1) of Clause 15(c)(.2) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) lead with Clause (c) of subjection 1 (2) of Section 53 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950. They also seek a declaration that the impugned dismissal orders are in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.(2) The Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 was enacted to provide for the establishment and regulation of a Road Transport Authority for the promotion of a co ordinated system of road transport in the Union Territory of Delhi. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Delhi Road Transport Authority was established and it took over with effect from April 1, 1950 the earlier transport system known as Delhi Transport Services whi...
Testing Machines Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC5
1. In this case, appellants imported 5 cases Universal Measuring Machine with accessories. They contended that the goods would be eligible for concessional rate of duty at 25% ad valorem in terms of Notifica tion No. 49-Cus., dated 1-3-1978. The benefit of this notification was refused by the As sistant Collector of Customs whose order was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, although be did not entirely agree with the reasons advanced by the Assistant Collector. It is against this order of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay that appellants are now before us.2. We have heard Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Kumar, SDR, for the department.3. The learned advocate says that the issue involved in the present matter is fully covered against revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Engineering Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1988 (37) ELT 61 (Tri.).4. The learned SDR responds briefly by stating that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »