Delhi Court April 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.
Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC472Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants on the same issue.These are being, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The order-in-appeals related to orders-in-original No. 6/79, dated 2-4-1979, No. 4/79, dated 2-4-1979 and No. 5/79, dated 2-4-1979 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Jodhpur. In the first order, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim of the appellant for Rs. 38,763.08 which they had filed before him on the ground that they had paid Central Excise duty by mistake on the stock of 43,773.6 kgs. of yam lying with them on the mid-night of 14/15-7-1977 which was utilized by them in the manufacture of cotton fabrics on or after 15-7-1977, In the order-in-original No. 4/79, the Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claim of Rs. 76,026.91 filed by the appellant on 87,458.431 kgs. of packed cotton fabrics lying with them on the mid-night of 14/15-5-1977 on the ground that it contained 87,458.431 kgs. of cotton yarn on which th...
Green Carriers and Contractors Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD519(Delhi)
1. An interesting point has been raised in this appeal. To appreciate it, let us note the facts first. The assessee is a private limited company, carrying on the business of plying trucks for carrying the goods from one place to the other in India. Its accounting period for the asst. year under consideration commenced on 1-7-1979 and ended on 30th June, 1980. It filed its return of income on 30th June, 1981 declaring total loss of Rs. 10,97,817 which was later revised upwards to Rs. 11,04,421.2. While scrutinising the various claims made by the assesses for deduction from the gross receipts for the year under consideration, he noted that the assessee had made claim of Rs. 11,56,106 on account of accident to a truck belonging to the assessee bearing No. RSY 6367. One of the sister concerns of the assessee-company namely M/s. Green Roadways Ltd. and hired the aforesaid truck of the assessee for carrying the goods; of its customers which it had booked in Gujarat.The said truck met with a...
Co-operative Store Ltd. Vs. Ved Prakash Bhambri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ119Del
1. This writ throws a challenge to the award, dated 24 May 1986, given by Sri O. P. Dwivedi, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, which award was published in the Gazette, dated 3 July 1986. 2. The petitioner is the Co-operative Store, Ltd, and is running a super bazar. The respondent Sri Ved Prakash Bhambri, was employed as cashier with the petitioner since 1966. The services of Ved Prakash Bhambri as well as of some other employees were terminated with effect from 1 May, 1976, on the ground that their services were no longer required by the petitioner. Subsequently, almost all other employees were taken back in service. However the respondent Ved Prakash Bhambri, allegedly was not taken back as he had moved an application, dated 6 October 1976, addressed to the Accounts Officers stating that he was to go out of India as he had secured a passport and he requested that his provident fund case be forwarded to the Provident Fund Commissioner for necessary action. It appears that the respondent Ve...
Vinod Kumar Vohra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT145
Malik Sarief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 24th of March 1987 as also the validity of the declaration passed on 21st April 1987 under section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed under section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act on 24th March 1987 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India Mr. Tarun Roy and was with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. This followed an incident dated 16th of February 1987 when the detenu while traveling from Hongkong to Calcutta via Bangkok was found in possession of foreign made smuggled gold. It may be made clear at this stage that the petitioner has already undergone the period of detention under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA. Act though he continues to be in detention by virtue of declaration under section 9(1) of the said Act. It is in these circumstances that Mr. Herjinder Singh, learned counsel for the...
Yogesh Chopra Vs. Administator of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi359A
H.C. Goel, J. (1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Yogesh Chopra prays for the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the detention order dated January 8, 1988 passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. 1 under Section 3(1) read with S. 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'), and for an order directing that the petitioner- detenu be set at liberty forthwith.(2) It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was trying to export certain precious and semi-precious stones from India to Bangkok when he was apprehended on 15th September, 1987 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The petitioner had reported at the Customs Counter at the said Airport. As a result of the examination of the suit case of the petitioner, the Customs Officers recovered one packet of ruby necklace, three packets of rubies, ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tech Invest (India) (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC239Tri(Delhi)
1. Smt. V. Zutshi, Departmental Representative for the appellants and Shri D.N. Kohli, Consultant for the respondents heard and papers perused. (1) that the so-called appeal is hopeleessly barred by limitation, the impugned order having been communicated to the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut in June 1982 and appeal having been presented on 26th March, 1984. Taking into consideration the Customs, Central Excise & Gold (Control) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982, the period of limitation expired sometime in December, 1982. The appeal filed on 26th March, 1984 is thus barred by limitation by nearly one year and three months for which there is no satisfactory explanation. (2) that Collector of Central Excise, Meerut is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 35B(2) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. (3) that the appeal as presented calls for an advisory opinion of the Tribunal and...
industrial Coatings and Waxes (P) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC172
1. The main question for decision in this appeal by the manufacturer-assessee is their eligibility to benefit of exemption under notification 71/78-CE dated 1-3-1978 as amended by notification 141/79 dated 30-3-1979.2. The appellants are a small scale manufacturer of printing inks, hot melts, reducers and retarders falling under TI 68 and varnishes falling under 14-II(i) of CET. The period in dispute originally related to 1-4-1979 to 5-9-1979. Printing inks and hot melts falling under item 68 were exempt from payment of the whole of the duty under notification 89/79-CE dated 1-3-1979. Reducers and retarders falling under item 68 were made without the aid of power and were thus exempt from payment of duty under notification 179/77 dated 18-6-1977. Notification 71/78-CE dated 1-3-1978 under which the appellants claim exemption in respect of varnishes exemption is granted in respect of the first clearances of excisable goods as specified in the notification cleared for home consumption u...
Kelvinator of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC414Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved because their refund claim has been rejected as time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the imported goods were originally cleared on payment of Customs Duty on 26.10.1982. There was an exemption notification in force at the material time which fixed a concessional rate duty. It seems that neither the appellants nor the customs assessing officer realised the existence of the notification or its applicability to the imported goods at the time of assessment. On 26.4.1983, i.e., almost after 6 months, the audit department of the Custom House informed the appellants that the notification could apply and that it was open to them to file a claim for refund. Thereupon, the appellants filed a refund claim on 29.4.1983. The claim so filed was obviously beyond the time limit of six months as laid down in Section 27(1) and both the lower authorities have rejected the claim on that...
Wandleside National Conductors Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC95
1. Filing of supplementary appeal not, considered necessary as the Order-in-Appeal challenged before the Tribunal is only one.2. The question for decision in this appeal is classification for the purpose of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff of Polyimide Film bearing brand name 'Kapton' imported by the appellants for the purpose of additional duty - whether it falls under TI 60 as adhesive tape or residuary tariff item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the appellants or T.I. 15A(2) ibid as an article of plastic as assessed by the Revenue.3. At the hearing of the ;appeal Shri Haksar, the learned advocate explained that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of electrical insulated copper conductors. Conductors are insulated with wide range of insulating material such as paper, enamel, fibre glass, lacquer.'Kapton' polyimide adhesive film is also used by the appellants for the same purpose. It is imported in a narrow tape form, tape being of predetermined width. He...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Del)380; [1989]175ITR78(Delhi)
Arun B. Saharya, J.1. These are five applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), by the Commissioner of Income-tax praying that we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) to draw up a statement of the case and refer it for our opinion on the following questions raised in each of the five applications, in respect of the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 : 'Income-tax Case No. 214 of 1986 : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding Rs. 1,60,000 as allowable expenditure for the maintenance of guest house (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the liability on account of additional excise duty to the extent of Rs. 5,51,388 in the assessment year 1976-77 keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in : [1980]121ITR854...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »