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.
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC39
1. This batch of appeals were heard together since the main point involved is the same.2. These respondents had exported certain products. They were initially allowed to be exported without payment of duty. Subsequently the authorities felt that duty was payable. Accordingly demands were issued. Duty was demanded on the ground that what was exported was animal feed and hence duty was payable under heading 21, CTA and no exemption was available. The respondents resisted the demands. The demands were subsequently confirmed under several orders. On appeals being filed, the said appeals were allowed by the concerned Collector (Appeals) under several orders. He held that, except in respect of certain products with reference to which a remand was felt justified, the other products were not animal feed and were, therefore, not subject to duty. It is against these orders that the present appeals have been preferred by the Department. We may note at this stage that no appeals or cross-objectio...
Collr. of Customs and C.E. Vs. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. This batch of appeals were heard together since the main point involved is the same.2. These respondents had exported certain products. They were initially allowed to be exported without payment of duty. Subsequently the authorities felt that duty was payable. Accordingly demands were issued. Duty was demanded on the ground that what was exported was animal feed and hence duty was payable under Heading 21-CTA and no exemption was available. The respondents resisted the demands. The demands were subsequently confirmed under several orders. On appeals being filed, the said appeals were allowed by the concerned Collector (Appeals) under several orders. He held that, except in respect of certain products with reference to which a remand was felt justified, the other products were not animal feed and were, therefore, not subject to duty. It is against these orders that the present appeals have been preferred by the Department. We may note at this stage that no appeals or cross-objection...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC653Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass and only a few facts are required to be stated for appreciating the point at issue.2. M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd., the respondents to the present appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, are engaged in the manufacture of refractory bricks falling under Item No. 68 of the CET Schedule and had opted for payment of Central Excise duty on the invoice value of the goods in terms of Central Excise Notification No.120/75-C.E., dated 30.4.1975. They had removed a quantity of bricks on 27.6.80 on payment of excise duty on the invoice value at the applicable rate. Subsequently, on 27.1.1981, they filed a claim for refund of Rs. 1,005.30 contending that the value of the goods had been erroneously charged in excess of the actual value and that excess duty had, therefore, been paid. This claim was dismissed by the Asstt.Collector by his order dated 28.1.1982 as barred by limitation under Section...
Francis Charles Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT1a; ILR1988Delhi188
Malik, J.(1) The -petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 15th May 1987 and the declaration under section 9(1). dated 17th June 1987 of the Conservation Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act by which his period of detention was extended by another year. The detention order has been passed by the Government of Kerala under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, Act, 1974 (as amended) and is with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. This followed an incident dated 16th of April 1987 when the petitioner is alleged to have come from Male in Ic flight 564 and landed at Trivandrum Airport. He was found carrying 9 gold biscuits of foreign made. The petitioner along with three others was remanded to judicial custody on 18th of April 1987 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam. He preferred a bail application on 11th May 1987 which was final...
J. K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-xviii and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi1
Jain, J.1. Messrs. J. K. Synthetics Ltd., the petitioner, is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at Kamla Tower, Kanpur (U.P.), and administrative office at Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Its accounting year ends on March 31. The dispute is regarding its liability to pay the advance tax for the assessment year 1988-89 corresponding to the financial year ending March 31, 1988. 2. For appreciating the facts and the controversy between the parties, it will be proper if we briefly notice the various relevant provisions contained in the income tax Act relating to the payment of advance tax. These provisions appear in Part 'C' of Chapter XVII of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 20. provides that tax shall be payable in advance in accordance with the provisions of sections 208 to 219 in the case of income except certain incomes mentioned therein. Under section 208, advance tax is payable by a c...
ishwar Dayal JaIn Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(37)ELT338(Del)
G.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner, Shri Ishwar Dayal Jain (since deceased), was an established exporter of peacock tail feathers. He was carrying on this business for the last 20 years in the name and style of M/s. Jain Traders, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The Ministry of Commerce prescribed a ceiling for the export of this item each year. On the basis of the said ceiling a quota for exporting this item was allocated to the established exporters and other categories by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports/Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The allocation was made on the basis of 'Export Instructions'. Relevant Export instruction No. 2/86-87, dated 6th May, 1986 (Annexure 'C') provided that export will be allowed to the established exporters on pro-rata basis to the extent of their entitlement on the basis of 'best year's exports'. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his 'best year's export' was in 1985-86 when he exported 1,60,180 ...
J.K. Synthetics Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle Xviii a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT54
G.C. Jain, J. (1) M/S. J. K. Synthetics Limited, the petitioner, is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at Kamla Tower, Kanpur (U.P.) and Administrative Office at Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Its accounting year ends on 31st March. The dispute is regarding its liability to pay the advance tax for the assessment year 1988-89 corresponding to financial year ending 31st March, 1988. (2) For appreciating the facts and the controversy between the parties it will be proper if we briefly notice the various relevant provisions contained in the Income Tax Act relating to the payment of the advance tax. These provisions appear in Part 'C' of Chapter Xvii of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 207 provides that tax shall be payable in advance in accordance with the provisions of Sections 208 to 219 in case of income except certain incomes mentioned therein. Under Section 208 advance tax is payable b...
Surendra Nath Sethia Vs. Arun Kumar Lamba
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT49
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) The appellant landlord who was working in United States of America as an Administrative Assistant in the World Bank, let out the first floor of his house no. 0-161, Naraina Vihar New Delhi on 13th October 19^8 for a limited period of 22 months. The reason given in the affidavit in support of the application for letting out the premises for a limited period was that he did not require the premises for a period of 22 months and thereafter he would need the premises for his own use and occupation because he was likely to be transferred back to India The Additional Rent Controller after considering the application of the appellant, the statement of the attorney of the appellant and the statement of the respondent granted permission to the respondent to occupy the premises till 12th August 1980. At the time when the permission was granted, the appellant's father Along with the appellant's mother and brother were residing in rented premises at 14/17 East Patel Nagar,...
Naeem Ahmad Khan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ262; ILR1988Delhi191
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 8th March. 198S passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) by Joint Secretary to Government of India. The detention order was passed with view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods (2) The detention order followed an incident dated 8th January. 1988 when while clearance of the outgoing passengers bound for Karachi and Dubai of Pakistan International Airlines Flight No. PK-291,the Customs Officers found a suit case which intimately according to them was found to be belonging to the petitioner. This suit case was found containing foreign currency and Indian currency collectively equivalent to worth Rs. 29.35,795.60. The petitioner failed to show any legal permission from the Reserve Bank of India and according to the respondents the petitioner was trying to smuggle out this currency from the country. (3) The p...
J. K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-xviii, an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Del)1; [1988]174ITR167(Delhi); [1988]41TAXMAN250(Delhi)
JAIN J. - Messrs. J. K. Synthetics Ltd., the petitioner, is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at Kamla Tower, Kanpur (U.P.), and administrative office at Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Its accounting year ends on March 31. The dispute is regarding its liability to pay the advance tax for the assessment year 1988-89 corresponding to the financial year ending March 31, 1988.For appreciating the facts and the controversy between the parties, it will be proper if we briefly notice the various relevant provisions contained in the income tax Act relating to the payment of advance tax. These provisions appear in Part 'C' of Chapter XVII of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 20. provides that tax shall be payable in advance in accordance with the provisions of sections 208 to 219 in the case of income except certain incomes mentioned therein. Under section 208, advance tax is payable by a compan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »