Delhi Court March 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Philips Petroleum Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD277(Delhi)
1. These two departmental appeals are directed against common order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The grounds in both the appeals are common.2. The assessee M/s.. Philips Petroleum Co. is a non-resident company having its registered office in Oklahoma in USA. This non-resident company had in the years 1960 to 1967 entered into various agreements with an Indian company, named as Phillips Carbon Black Ltd., by which the result of extensive research held on by the assessee-company relating to the manufacture of carbon black, particularly in the manufacture of carbon black from heavy hydrocarbon oils and had certain technical information, process, know-how and booklets. The assessee-company had granted Phillips carbon black licence to use in the Indian territory technical information relating to the furnace black process. The assessee-oompany had also agreed at that time to furnish to the Indian company certain written tec...
Dixilyn Field International Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD118(Delhi)
1. These 51 second appeals against a similar number of orders all dated 11th March, 1987, passed by the CIT (Appeals), Meerut, hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A), require adjudication on an interesting issue relating to the taxability of salary income received in relation to the period ending 31-3-1983, i.e., for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessments in all the cases were raised on M/s. Dixilyn Field International Drilling Co. (shortly referred to as DFIDCO) as agent of its employees. Shri N.A. Palkhivala, Senior Advocate, who appeared with Shri I.P. Gupta, Advocate and Shri A.P. Srivastava, Senior Departmental Representative suggested that the facts in the case of Mr. Paul Weigel being typical of all other assessees decision in his case can be safely made the basis for deciding all the appeals. Accepting the suggestion, which we find convenient and expedient, we shall be narrating the facts in the case of the said assessee only.2. Mr. Paul Weigel was an employee of DFIDCO, ...
injecto P. Ltd. Vs. Controller of Aid Accounts
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT430(Del)
1. In 1964, the Ministry of Commerce (Government of India), Import Trade Control, New Delhi, issued a public notice inviting applications for licenses for import of machinery, components thereof, equipment, other commodities and raw materials from the U.S. under AID Loan 103. The license were to be valid for import goods having their source and origin in and procured from the United States. The goods were considered to be of U.S. source and origin, inter alia, if such goods were shipped from a U.S. port or from a free port or bonded warehouse, if shipped from said free port or bonded warehouse in the form in which received when shipped from U.S. port and if such goods were mined, grown a produced through manufacturing, processing or assembly in the U.S. It was necessary that the importer shall ensure that the U.S. Supplier attaches to or endorses on each invoice presented for payment a certification source and origin as in the form prescribed by the said public notice. The certificate ...
Swantantra Ved Sahni Vs. Santosh Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ6; 1988RLR469
S.B. Wad, J.(1) A neat question of law arises turn consideration in this appeal, viz. where the two parties who have filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, can the divorce be granted by the matrimonial court on a motion only by one of the spouses under Section 13-B(2) of the Act (2) A joint petition for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent was moved by the petitioner and the respondent on 10-8-1983. On 4-9-1984 the husband alone tiled the petition under Section 13-B(2) of the Act. The wife did not join the proceedings or in other words did not consent for the second motion to be made under the said sub-section. The learned Adj dismissed the petition filed by the husband holding that if one of the parties with held the consent a decree for divorce cannot be granted under the said sub-section. On the facts of the case the learned Judge also opined that there was every likelihood that the wife had joined the petition ...
Mettur Beardsell Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(42)ELT153TriDel
1. Samples were taken on 24.6.81 of cotton yarn manufactured by the appellants M/s. Mettur Beardsell Ltd., to verify whether they were of declared counts 34 and 36, as mentioned by the appellants. The report of the chemical examiner disclosed that the counts were 35.65 and 38.39 respectively. Notice dated 14.10.81 was issued to the appellants as to why the differential duty of Rs. 42,605.99 paise should not be recovered from them. In sending their reply thereto the appellants sought for a retest. The Asstt. Collr. intimated them that request for retest cannot be entertained as the same had not been made within 90 days of the receipt of the test report. Subsequently he adjudicated on the matter and confirmed the demand. On appeal the Collector (Appeals), under his order dated 1.7.83, set aside the order in part, holding that the variation in respect of the yarn of declared count 34 was within the tolerance limit, and, therefore, the duty demand in respect of that variety of yarn was no...
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC102Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the demand for differential Central Excise dutv amounting; to Rs. 3,50,276/-. This demand pertains to the period from 1-4-1977 to 30-6-1978. It was issued on 28-11-1978. Thus, leaving the period of about one month, the demand for the rest of the period is time barred. The appellants have produced a copy of the show cause notice. We do not find the proviso to Rule 10 allowing the extended period of 5 years, having been invoked in the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the demand has to be confined only to a period of six months preceding the issue of the show causse notice. The plea of time bar has been raised by the appellants for the first time before us. But we are inclined to consider this plea in the interests of justice.2. Coming to the merits of the appeal, we find from the record that the 12 distributors of the appellants' have been treated by the department as 'related person' and assessment has been ordered to be done on the basis of t...
Bhavana Apparells Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT642TriDel
1. The two appeals were heard together as they arise out of the same order.2. Show cause notices were issued to these two appellants M/s. Bhavana Ap-parells and Indu Apparells in respect of duty payable by them on the readymade garments manufactured and removed by them during the period 1-4-1975 to 15-3-1976. The allegation against them, stated in short, was that they were not eligible for benefit of duty free removals in respect of the periods during which they had respectively manufactured the readymade garments since the manufacture was in the same factory and the total clearances had exceeded the duty free exemption limit. On adjudication the Collector of Central Excise; Bombay-1, under his order dated 29-7-1981 directed exemption be granted to the two appellants proportionately out of the duty free clearances of Rs. 5 lakhs for the year and demanded duty in respect of the balance of clearances. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 on each of the appellants.On appeal the ...
The Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi77; 35(1988)DLT64; 1988RLR340
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This order will dispose of I.A. No. 177/88, being an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 Cpc filed by the plaintiff; I.A. No. 416/88 being an application under Order 39, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code filed by defendant No. 1; and I.A. No. 1298/88, being an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff.(2) The plaintiff had filed a suit alleging that its registered trade mark 'SAFFOLA' has been infringed by the defendant. According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner of the registered trade mark 'SAFFOLA' in respect of edible oil. This registration was applied for on 17th October 1961. This registration was granted. The plaintiff also applied on 28th August 1964 and obtained another registration for the word 'SAFFOLA' in respect of Kardi Oil. A third registration which was obtained was of the label consisting of two horizontal labels similar to the earlier label, but with the addition of a device of heart. Accordin...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Five Star Pencil Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1988
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ68
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,69,473.28 against the defendants with costs and pendente lite and future interest. The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi and amongst others one branch office at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and is competent/entitled to sue in its own name. Shri Bhola Singh is the Branch Manager of the Rajouri Garden Branch of the Bank and as such is its principal officer and a person conversant with the facts of the case and is able to depose about the same and is also the general attorney of the Bank who is fully authorised to institute and present the suit, sign pleadings, engage a lawyer, to prosecute the same and to do all other acts, deeds and things in this regard.2. It is alleged that defendants No. 2 to 6 in the capacity of partners of defendant No. 1, the partners...
Niemla Textile Finishing Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC139Tri(Delhi)
1. By the Miscellaneous Application under consideration questions of law in the subject reference application are sought to be amended leave for which was granted on 25.1.88.2. Allowing the miscellaneous application for substitution of para 8 of the Reference Application the matter relating to the Reference Application was heard.3. The learned Adv. has reiterated the revised questions of law as spelt out in para 8 thereof. Learned SDR has opposed the Reference Application that none of the questions are of law. These are either questions of fact, based on appreciation of evidence on record, or the law is well settled. (i) Was the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine justified in law in respect of fabrics which have not acquired the status of processed fabrics on the day of the visit of the central excise staff to the unit and were yet in process. (ii) Was the order of the adjudicating officer, the Collector (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal in respect of the two lots in pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »