Delhi Court August 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.
Durang Steels Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC356Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant company has urged that the adjudicating authority by the impugned order has disallowed the credit of Rs. 1,78,729.50 taken during the month of July 1986. The said authority has also demanded a sum of Rs. 88,915.05 on account of clearance of 282.27 M.T. of steel ingots cleared by the applicants during July 1986 against the debit entries made by the applicants in their MOD VAT credit account. The said authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for irregular availment and utilisation of credit.2. The learned advocate urged that the aforesaid demand of duty and imposition of penalty is apparently bad in law in view of the clear direction of Government of India's letter dated 7-4-1986 deeming iron and steel scraps available in the market as duty paid and allowing the purchaser/manufacturer thereof to take credit at a certain rate without production of the duty paying documents namely GP-1. The learned advocate also relies upon a...
The Narang House Building Co-operative Society Vs. Delhi Administratio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ354
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) PLAINTIFF-SOCIETY has filed this suit seeking injunction against the defendants restraining them for effecting the recovery of Rs. 2,22,627.40 in terms of the impugned demand dated 23rd July, 1976. The case set up in the plaint is that the full amount demanded by the defendants in the year 1971 had been paid to them by the plaintiff and it was so confirmed by the defendants and thereafter nothing remained due. The impugned demand dated 23rd July, 1976 is claimed to be illegal and arbitrary.(2) Defendants contested this suit and raised various pleas but it has not been specifically pleaded in the written-statements as to what was the basis of the impugned demand dated 23rd July, 1976. (3) On pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed : (1) Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person (2) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (3) Whether the suit has been properly value...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. JaIn and Co. Iron and Steel
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC319Tri(Delhi)
1. The un-disputed facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of bolts and nuts, who applied for Central Excise Licence around October/November, 1975 and this was granted to them on 17-1-1976. On 18-11 -1976, when a Central Excise Officer visited the manufacturing premises, he observed that the respondents had cleared bolts and nuts valued at Rs. 77,539.99 during the period 1-4-1976 to 13-11-1976. They were, therefore, charged for not opting for the simplified procedure from 1 -4-1976 and in the orders passed, as a result of the Show Cause Notice issued to them, they were denied the benefit of Notification No. 158/71, dated 26-7-1971, duty of Rs. 7,753.99 was demanded and a penalty of Rs. 100/- imposed. When the matter went up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), he upheld the penalty imposed on the respondents for not following the physical control procedure, but he set aside the demand of duty on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 158/71 could not...
Agam and Gem Laboratories Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC567Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appel lants manufacture patent and proprietary (P&P) medicines falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14-E as also pharmacopeal medicines falling under Tariff Item 68.While claim ing exemption from duty for PP medicines under Notification No. 80/80, dated 19.6.1980, the appellants filed declaration in terms of Notification No. 2/81 for exemption from licenc ing control inasmuch as they declared that the clearances of their medicine during the preceding financial year did not exceed Rs. 6,00,000/-. In declaring this clearance value of medicines, it is admitted that the appellants herein did not include the value of phar macopeal medicines which were fully exempted under Notification No. 55/75, dated 1.3.1975 under Tariff Item 68. The department has alleged and found in the impugned order that the appellants herein deliberately suppressed the clearance value of phar macopeal medicines and did not include the value thereof in the clearance va...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Krishan Kumar Agarwal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD530(Delhi)
1. In these applications under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, Shri K.K. Aggarwal, who was the assessee-respondent in WTA Nos.159, 160 and 161/Del/87 from which these petitions arise, has been arrayed as a respondent. The petitions were presented on 2-2-1981 and it was on 29th April, 1988 that the Tribunal was informed by the counsel for the erstwhile assessee (deceased) that the said Shri Krishan Kumar Agarwal had died on the 26th April, 1987. The Tribunal's order by which the aforesaid appeals were decided is dated 17th August, 1987. The revenue has now moved an application dated 4-8-1988 seeking to substitute Shri Arun Kumar Mittal and Shri Ashish Mittal as the legal representatives of the deceased.2. Objections have been filed on behalf of Shri Arun Mittal, son of the deceased, stating that the applications under Section 27(1) are incompetent as they have been filed against a dead person. It has also been stated that the ITO concerned was informed on 9th March, 1988 abo...
Embassy Restaurant and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT127
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The question which arises for determination in this writ petition is whether Rule 18, Delhi Liquor license Rules 1976 is constitutionally valid. The petitioners carry on the trade of running restaurants at Connaught Place, New Delhi. Embassy, Gaylord, Kwality, Standard and Volga are five restaurants Along with their (owners who have impugned the validity of Rule 18. They have sought a direction for striking down the said Rule as ultra virus of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to issue liquor licenses (Bar licenses) in favor of the petitioners in form L-5 for sale of foreign liquor and Indian Made Foreign Liquors to their customers and license in form L-4 for retail vend of beer for the consumption at their restaurants. (2) The petitioners' case is that four out of the five Restaurants held bar licenses till the year 1956. These licenses were issued under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for sh...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT309; 1988(15)DRJ307
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This appeal by Dinesh Kumar is against the judgment dated the 26th July, 1985 of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 . Briefly stated, the facts are as under.(2) The deceased Satya Parkash D.iwar (hereinafter referred to as 'Dawar') was a tenant of a shop in premises No. 4515, Gali Jatan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The owner was Mangal Sain, father of the appellant Dinesh Kumar. The tenant wanted to install a printing machine in the shop but the landlord objected to the same. He (Dawar) had bought the machine almost a week prior to the occurrence. On 26th February, 1984, which happened to be a Sunday, Dawar had arranged for a mechanic to install the machine in the shop where the machine had been earlier stored. Mangal Sain and his three sons Vijay Kumar @ Chinny, Vinod Kumar and Dinesh Kumar came to the shop and enquired as t...
S. Sujan Singh Vs. Yad Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)ARBLR1(Delhi); 36(1988)DLT413; 1988RLR706
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) In this suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 5.8.1981 which was resisted by defendant No, 1, as many as 11 issues were framed by the Court on 9.9.1985. It was ordered on 8.10.1985 on I.A. 5704/85 of defendant no. I that issues 2, 3 and 10 would be treated as preliminary issues. These three issues are as follows :- '2.Whether the suit has not been properly valued 3. Whether the object of the agreement to sell was unlawful as the object of the plaintiff in being the suit land was to develop the same for a residential colony and as such is the agreement void and unforceable? 10. What is the effect of defendant No. 2 not joining the plaintiff in asking for specific performance of the agreement or part thereof '(2) Agreements of th6 learned counsel for the plaintiff and also of the learned counsel for defendant no. I were heard on these preliminary issues. Issue No. 2 (3) This issue was not pressed by Mr. Tyagi learned counsel for defendant No...
Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC73
1. The appellant company was fabricating columns, purlins, bracings, rafters and other items required for erection. The fabrication was out of duty paid iron and steel products such as plates, angles etc. by subjecting them to the process of cutting, welding revetting etc. The Assistant Collector held that the process of conversion of iron and steel products into columns etc. amounted to a process of manufacture since the resultant goods had a distinct name, character and use, different from the raw materials. The full details of the matter were very well recorded by the Assistant Collector in his order. The following portion of his order is reproduced in view of its detail :- "The raw materials used in fabrication are standard profiles and plates as supplied by rolling mills of Steel Plants i.e. joists, channels, angles and plates of various sizes, length and thicknesses as required. The fabrication of steel structure generally involves the following processes. They are partly/wholly...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Wipro Information Technology
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC309Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department. The basic point of dispute in this appeal is whether technical service charges recovered by. the respondents from their customers, but not disclosed to the department, were in-cludible in the assessable value of computers sold by the respondents, for the charge of Central Excise duty.2. Relying on paragraph 49 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Bombay Tyres International Limited -1983 (13) ELT1896 (SC), in which it was held that after-sale-service charges were includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Assistant Collector decided that the technical service charges collected by the respondents were to be included in the assessable value. And since the respondents had disclosed to the department only that part of the contract with their customers which related to the sale of computer hardware, kept back the other part relating to the technical service charges and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »