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.
Ajay Electrical Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC290
1. This is an appeal directed against Order-in-Original No. 32/CE/85, dated 23-1-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.By this order, the Collector held that the (disputed) goods manufactured by the appellants were classifiable as printed cartons under Item 17(3) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule and Act are referred to hereinafter as Central Excise Tariff and the ACT for brevity's sake). He also demanded under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) Rs. 5,62,204 53 as duty leviable on the clearances effected during the period from March, 1982 to January, 1985 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants under Rule 173Q for contravention of the various provisions of Central Excise law.2. We have beard Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri V.M. Doiphode, SDR, for the respondent.3. Certain additional material consisting of a letter dated 22-8-1986 from ...
Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC400Tri(Delhi)
1. The question involved in these two anneals is whether the mixture of cyclohexanone and cyclohexanol sold by the appellants in mild steel drums which are brought by customers should be assessed on a value including the value of the steel drums or not The authorities below held that the value of steel drums should be included to the value.Hence the present appeal originally filed as Revision Applications before the Central Government.2. Shri Thakore, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the question as to whether the value of the steel drums brought by customers into which the appellants sold goods should be included in the assessable value has been decided by the Tribunal in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Meerut Cegat SB-A. Shri Bajaj, the learned JDR accepted that the ratio of the Tribunal's earlier order is applicable to the present case and had nothing more to say.3. We perused the Tribunal's earlier judgment The appellants therein ...
Black Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT702TriDel
1. At the beginning of the hearing, Shri Chakraborti, Departmental Representative has drawn our attention to a Misc. application dated 12th July, 1988 filed by the Advocate for the appellants in which two documents as stated therein were filed along with the application for reliance in this case. Shri Chakraborti objected to the introduction of these documents, being new evidence not produced before the lower authorities.2. In view of this objection raised by the learned Departmental Representative, Shri Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellants, has prayed that the Misc. application along with two documents may be ignored and he will not rely on the same.3. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Mehta has stated that the subject-matter of these proceedings is classification list No. 1 of 87 dated 5-3-1987 effective from 1-3-1987 which was filed by the appellants after the Central Excise duty on preparations of fruit and vegetables was reduced by the notification. The classification list w...
Nand Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT391
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) The challenge in this petition is to the memorandum dated 9th October,1987, whereby the allotment of flat No. BG-6/157-A, Paschim Puri, New Delhi, under Janta category in favor of the petitioner was cancelled. The cancellation was for the reason that the petitioner had not complied with the letter of allotment dated 4th February, 1987 inasmuch as the first Installment as demanded was not paid within the stipulated period of one month. The letter is dated 4th February, 1987. It stipulates that a sum of Rs. 15, 868.76 should be paid within one month. However, further condition which is condition No. 5 deals with extention of time to deposit the Installment. This condition stipulates that if the allottee does not make payment within the given time, the allotment will remain valid for one month more and thereafter it will stand cancelled automatically. The allottee has to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, on the delayed payment for that one month or a ...
Aeroplane Shoe Factory Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD478(Delhi)
Doctrine of partial merger became effective only from 1-6-1988 and order passed before 1-6-1988 got completely merged with appellate order ceased to be revisable.Any amendment to a statute affecting the legal rights of an individual must be presumed to be prospective unless it is made expressly or impliedly retrospective. Retrospective effect in a provision is not to be lightly and readily inferred. In the present case the Explanation to section 263(3)(1) affects a provisions which is substantive and not merely procedural. It is only a procedural provision to which retrospectivity can be normally attracted. No doubt, the Explanation to section 263(1) as substituted by the Finance Act, 1988 with effect from 1-6-1988 incorporates the provision regarding partial merger (vide clause (c)) but in the light of what has been observed above regarding the Explanation being prospective in effect and not retrospective, it cannot be accepted that the partial merger provision was always there.There...
Maman Chand Ramji Das Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD487(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee-firm is directed against the order of the AAC of Income-tax, F-range, New Delhi dated 17-3-1986 relating to assessment year 1972-73. There are interesting issues raised in this appeal, but before we come to them, we bring into focus the factual canvas of the case.2. The assessee was a firm evidenced by instrument dated 1-4-1967 constituted of partners S/Shri Maman Chand and Govind Ram. It was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of poly thene laminated cotton fabrics. Till 16-9-1970, there was no excise duty on these fabrics. However, on 17-9-1970, polythene laminated cotton fabrics were declared excisable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Central Excise Autho rities and the assessee was obliged to obtain L-4, Central Excise Licence. The firm as constituted above, therefore, had to pay excise duty amounting to Rs. 66,892.62 up to 31-12-1970. The pre vious year of the firm was calendar year. The excise duty so paid was releva...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. S. Tej Paratap Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT278
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This judgment shall dispose of three Regular Second Appeals Nos. 80/74, 96/74 and 97/74. (2) The three appeals captioned above have been filed by New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC in short) against the consolidated judgment in appeal passed by Shri B.B. Gupta, the then Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, disposing of three appeals, namely, Rca 143/70, Rca 232/72 and Rca 231/72. The first Rca 143/70 had been filed by Ndmc against the judgment of the trial court dated 31st March, 1970 in Suit No. 57/69; whereas the two later appeals had been filed by the respondent herein in respect to his Suit Nos. 57/69 and 397/69. (3) The two suits had been filed by the respondent herein challenging fixation of enhanced assessable value in respect to property known as Windsor Mensions, Janpath Lane, New Delhi for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The challenge to the assessment in the suits was, inter-alia, on the contention that no notice for the proposed enhancement in ...
Harmohan Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: 1988RLR538
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of a detention order dt. 8.3.88 pursuant to which he was detained. The detention order was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Govt of India u/s 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act, 1974 (as amended) and it was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. (2) The detention order followed an incident dt. 26.11.87 when the petitioner who was traveling in an Air India flight from Bombay to Dubai was found by the customs authorities in possession of foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 6,03,917.50 and was trying to smuggle it outside the country. The petitioner failed to produce any permission from the Reserve Bank of India to satisfy the authorities that he was validly exporting the foreign exchange. (3) The validity of the detention is being challenged on a number of grounds but it is not necessary for me to refer to all the grounds as I am in full agreement with Mr. R.M. Bagai, learned counsel for the pe...
Jaymes Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC412Tri(Delhi)
1. The Issue in the present matter relates to the interpretation of Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. The appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) which has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector in which it was held that the total value of clearances of goods for purposes of Notification No.80/80-C.E. would include the value of goods produced without the aid of power in the other factory of the appellants, and since such value exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs, the limit prescribed in the notification, therefore appellants were not entitled to exemption under the said notification. Appellant's claim that the show cause notice by the department for recovery of refund was time barred, was also rejected.2. We have heard Shrl Satish B. Naik, Excise-ln-Charge of the Company and Smt. Dolly Saxena, Senior Departmental Representative.3. Shri Naik has filed a copy of written submissions on behalf of the appellants. Smt. Dolly Saxena briefly submitted that ...
Mahesh Chander Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT46
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Mahesh Chander, the appellant berein, challenges his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also appealed against the order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 , in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for 2 years, for the offence of murdering his mother-in- law on 26th of September, 1983, (2) Mr. Bawa, learned counsel for the appellant made a statement before us on 26th July, 1988, that the appellant is confining the appeal to the offence made out and not challenging the finding of facts. The pica is that the prosecution has been able to make out the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant herein and not the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . for which he has been found guilty and sentenced. (3) The facts of the case have been noticed fully by the learned Sessions Judge in his impugned Judgment dated 27th May, 1987. We do not propose to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »