Delhi Court July 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.
Roots Auto Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC358Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, appellants have imported what is described in the Bill of Entry as "Polyester Supported PVC orange colour supplied in Rolls".As per the specifications of the manufacturer the product is described as "Poly-Plax" and its properties are tested as for coated fabrics. The importers claimed that the goods were assessable for basic Customs duty under Heading 59.01/15 of the Customs Tariff and Item 22-B of the Central Excise Tariff for purposes of Additional duty. In fact, the Customs authorities had assessed the goods under Heading 59.01/15-CTA and, therefore, there was no dispute in this regard before the Asstt.Collector, who accordingly, went into the question of classification for purposes of levy of additional duty only. The Asstt. Collector decided that the correct classification for purposes of additional duty of customs was Item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants went up in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against this classification un...
West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC625Tri(Delhi)
1. Appplicant M/s. West Coast Paper Mills Limited have filed this Reference Application in relation to this Tribunal's Order No. 896/87-C dated 21.10.1987 in Appeal No. ED(SB) 116/79-C. By the said Order dated 21.10.1987 appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Special Bench-C of this Tribunal. In paragraph 8 of this reference application the applicants have raised certain points, which, according to them, are important questions of law involved in the impugned order of this Tribunal and have prayed that under Section 35-G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, a statement of the case be drawn and the questions of law be referred to the High Court of Karnataka.2. The reference application was filed on 17.3.1988. In the C.O.D.application, the applicants have stated that the Tribunal's order was received by them on 3.12.1987 and they should have filed the reference application under Section 35G(1) within 60 days of the date on which the Tribunal's order was served on them. It is a...
Hukam Chand Mills Vs. Collector, C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT59TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants submitted classification list dated 21.11.1981 and claimed the benefit of the exemption under Notification 226 of 1977, dated 15.7.77 under proviso (vi) of the Notification and availed of the set-off of duty paid on Grey Fabrics used by them for manufacture of processed fabrics.The appellants made clearance of the goods after paying duty in terms of the approved classification list claiming the benefit of the said notification. This Notification was, however, amended by Notification 111/80, dated 19.6.80 and the proviso (vi) of the said notification by which a provision had been made for availing of set-off of duty paid on grey fabrics was deleted. However, the facility of taking proforma credit of duty in terms of Rule 56A of Central Excises and Salt Act was available to the appellants. The appellants, however, continued to avail of the facility of s...
Roussel Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC10
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants have made written submission for decision of the appeal on merits. The short point for consideration, In this appeal, is whether Cholesterol BP imported by the appellants is exempt from payment of C.V. Duty in terms of Notification 234/82-C.E.The claim of the appellants is under entry No. 21 of the said exemption Notification. The description of the goods exempt under this serial No.is as under: 2. The appellants have pleaded that the cholesterol is used in medicinal formulation and they should be considered as bulk drug, they have cited an order of the Tribunal C-205/85 dated 20.2.1985. In that case, the Tribunal has considered the issue whether citric acid monohydrate BP was elligible for the benefit of Notification 104/82 as amended by Notification 197/82 in terms of entry, "All bulk drugs, medicines and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified." 3. The learned JDR for the depa...
Arunodaya Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC28
1. This Bench of 3 Members was constituted under order dated 8.12.1987 of Shri G. Sankaran, Senior Vice-President, to hear submissions on the points of difference arising out of the orders of Shri K.S.Dillpsinhji, Member (Technical) and Shri K. Gopal Hegde, Member (Judicial) who heard arguments in these four appeals. The order dated 8.12.1987 was in terms of Section 129-0(5) of the Customs Act.2. One of the parties [M/s. P.G. Textile Mills (P) Ltd.] had intimated under letter dated 7.7.1988 that they would not be appearing before us and that we may decide the matter on merits in their absence.Accordingly none was present on their behalf during the hearing before us.3. At the commencement of the hearing Shri Dave appearing for M/s.Jayshree Textiles submitted that so far as his client is concerned there is no point of difference to be resolved since both the Members of the West Regional Bench had held in favour of his client and had ordered allowing that appeal. In the circumstances he ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ambal Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT230TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by Collector of Customs, Cochin against the orders of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras. The impugned order was communicated to the Collector on 7-7-1984 and the appeal has been filed in the Tribunal on 8-10-1084. Thus there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal beyond the period of 3 months. The delay was explained by the learned Departmental Representative as transit delay.The learned Advocate for the respondents had no objection to the condonation of the same. Delay of one day in filing the appeal is, therefore, condoned.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported goods which they described as Cupro Bomberg Staple fibre (Viscose Staple fibre) and claimed the benefit of the exemption Notification No.388-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. The goods in test by the Cochin Customs House were found to be synthetic staple fibre of Cellulose origin (regenerated cellulosic) other than polynosic and viscose. The lower original authority refused their ...
Milestone Tyres (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD18(Delhi)
1. Appellant-assessee by these two appeals challenges a consolidated order dated 25-7-1985, of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi, for the asstt. years 1980-81 and 1981-82, passed on appeals against the assessment orders dated 6-3-1983 and 25-8-1983 framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since parties, facts and issues are common, for the sake of convenience both the matters are being disposed of by single order as was also done by the learned first appellate authority.2. To start with we take up assessee's 1TA No. 5058 (Delhi) 198 for the assessment year 1980-81. First ground raised is against the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 8,387 as commission paid to M/s.M.L. Verma and Sons. By status the assessee in this case is a private limited company, engaged in the business of retreading of old tyres.Its accounting period was the year ending 30-6-1979. Earlier this very business was being carried on by M/s. M.L. Verma and Sons, HUF.Subsequent...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD57(Delhi)
1. This is a departmental appeal. The first grievance of the revenue is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in directing that Rs. 31,70,412, being the additional cane price, should have been allowed to the assessee as deduction, as liability in respect of it had accrued and arisen against the company which follows mercantile system of accounting.2. The additional price for sugarcane becomes payable to the assessee in terms of Clause 5A of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. The relevant portion of the said clause reads as below: Where a producer of sugar or his agent purchases sugarcane from a sugarcane grower during each sugar year, he shall, in addition to the minimum sugarcane price fixed under Clause 3 pay to the sugarcane grower an additional price, if found due in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule annexed to this order.The Second Schedule gives the formula for determining the additional cane price payable under Clause 5A referred to above. The said Schedule may be re...
Sumitra Devi Vs. Rameshwar Dayal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT217
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is defendant's second appeal. She failed in a suit for pre-emption filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court. (2) It is unnecessary to give the facts in detail suffice to note that plaintiffs, the three brothers, as co-sharers filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of l/4th share of house No. 2256 (old)/4529-30 (new) Daiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi, which was purchased by the defendant by a sale deed which is dated 8th January, 1969. The suit was filed on 6th January, 1970. The whole of this house belonged to four brothers. Three of them by different also deeds dated 16th August, 1967, 26th August, 1967 and 13th February, 1969 sold their respective shares to the three plaintiffs who, as noted above, are again brothers. The fourth brother of the original owners sold his l/4th share to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 8000.00 . This led to the filing of the present suit. On pleadings of t...
Bhupendra Amratlal Mehta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT149; 1988(15)DRJ326
H.C. Goel, J.(1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges his order of his detention as passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. 1, on September 8, 1987 directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, as also his continued detention as per the said order. Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, respondent No. 3, had made a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA) on September 2li, 1987. By virtue of this declaration the period of detention of the petitioner has been two years from the date of his detention. It is stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from London on July 26, 1987. On search of his baggage as also his personal.search 132 piec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »