Delhi Court January 1989 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.
Sunshine Exporters Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC58Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Sunshine Exporters, Bombay, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, New Custom House, Bombay. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 31.8.1987. In column No. 3 of the Memo of Appeal "date of communication of the order appealed against" has been mentioned as 7.5.1987. In terms of the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. the appeal has to be presented within three months from the date of the receipt of the order and as such the appeal should have been filed on or before 7.8.1987, but the same was presented on 31.8.1987.2. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. Shri Gujral has also relied on a subsequent application for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit dated 11.2.1988 sworn before the Notary Public and has argued that the applicants had tiled a writ peti...
Rajinder Anand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi202
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) In this writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashment of detention order dated September 7. 1988, issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') and the declaration issued under Section 9(1) of Cofeposa Act. (2) The facts, in brief, are that on August 14, 1988, the Delhi Police had apprehended Mohideen and K. Mohd. Kunhi, who were riding a two-wheeler scooter and from the tool box 'of the scooter four semi-spherical pieces of gold, twelve rods of. gold collectively weighing 886 gms. and Rs. 7,020 in cash were recovered and as they failed to furnish any satisfactory Explanationn regarding their legal possession of the gold, they came to be handed over to the officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and both of them were interrogated on...
Electric Construction and Equipment Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. N. Kumar and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Del)68; ILR1989Delhi196; [1989]177ITR16(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) These four matters arise from the same proceedings so I am disposing them of by this Judgment. (2) Facts, in brief, are that Shri NKumar, Incometax Officer. Central Circle Xix, New Delhi had filed a criminal complaint against 10 accused for offences committed by them under Section 276(0(1) and 278 of Income-tax Act 1961. Accused No. I is M/s. Electric Construction and Equipment Company Limited, accused No. 2 is President of that company while accused No. 3 to 9 are the Directors of the said company and accused No. 10 is an employee of that company. The accused No. I is engaged in the manufacture of various electric items. For the Assessment Year 1981-82, the accused company filed its return of income-tax on June 29, 1981 which was in prescribed form and was verified under the signatures of Accused No. 7. The return was accompanied by printed audited Balance-sheet, Profit & Loss Account and other details which was singed by accused No. 3,4,5,6 and 9 in their capacitie...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC202Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the respondents were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 as amended by Notification No. 141/79-C.E., dated 30-3-1979 for the financial year 1979-80.2. The facts of the case, as emerge from the orders of the lower authorities, are that the respondents manufactured P.P. Medicines, P.H.Oils, P.P. Foods and Dantman-jan Lal from their five units at Jhansi, Nagpur, Patna, Naini and Calcutta. During the financial year 1978-79, they cleared P.P. Medicines, P.H. Oils and P.P. Foods from their five units to the extent of Rs. 19,75,283.74. In the said year they also cleared Dantmanjan Lal valued at Rs. 6,66,683.00. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur added the value of clearances of all the four products, which exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs in the financial year 1978-79 and held that the respondents were not eligible for the exemption under the above notification for their clearances during the finan...
Prem Kumar Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC242Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant imported a new Toyota Starlet Car of 1982 Model. The dispute in this appeal relates to valuation of the said car for the purpose of assessment of customs duty.2. The appellant produced the manufacturer's invoice. He claimed 15% discount on the invoice price. The Assistant Collector accepted the invoice price without giving the benefit of 15% discount. He held that the invoice already represented the discounted price. The first appeal filed by the appellant before the Collector (Appeals) on this ground as well as on some others filed. In the second appeal filed before this Tribunal, the appellant pressed for the following 5 reliefs at the time of the hearing before us. We shall deal with them item-wise.3. The appellant contended before us that the invoice price was not a discounted price. The learned representative of the department maintained, on the basis of his experience in the customs department, that the invoice price to the export passengers (like the present ap...
K.L. Sethi Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)Crimes558; 37(1989)DLT271
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The petitioner who is an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (for short 'DTC') has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to withdraw the criminal case, being case No: Rc 24/81 then pending in the court of Shri K..C. Lohia, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (2) At the time of hearing of the case today Mr. J.P. Gupta appearing for the petitioner briefly narrated the facts to the effect that the petitioner was accused of having tiled false claim on account of Leave Travel Concession (for short 'LTC') during the year 1980 and a complaint was lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation whereupon the case, as described in the caption, was initiated and the petitioner stands charged for the offences under Sections 120-B read with Sec. 420/511; 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) There is ...
Praveen Kumar Bhatia Vs. M. Ghosh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi274; 1990(18)DRJ9; ILR1989Delhi211; 1989RLR136
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This application has been moved under Order 1. Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by New India Assurance Company Limited turn being imp leaded as party in the suit.(2) Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present application are that Praveen Kumar Bhatia has tiled the present suit against defendants I and 2 who are the doctors and Defendants 3 the Nursing Home owned by Defendant 2, on the ground that due to their gross negligence in treating tbe plaintiff's wife, they have caused death of plaintiff's wife and thus plaintiff claims Rs. 20 lacs as damages from the defendants. The plea taken by the applicant insurance company in the application is that defendant being a qualified medical practitioner had obtained an insurance cover policy for the relevant period covering the risk as 'Doctors Indemnity Insurance. Ima Medical Protection Scheme' to the tune of Rs, l,00,000.00 , so it is mentioned in the application that applicant's int...
Jayapalan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT289; 1989(22)ECC319
Bahri, J. (1) Appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Slifastances Act 1985 vide judgment dated August 11, 1987 of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a line of rupees one lakh and in case of fault in the payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year vide separate order of the same date. Appellant has challenged his conviction unit sentences by filing the present appeal through jail. Although appeal was barred by limitation, still the appeal has been admitted to hearing on merits vide order dated Dccen-.ber ifc i^87 by Malik, J. (2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that S.L Anjani Kumar while posted at Police Station Greater. Kailash Part I had received a secret information w about 2.3C P.M. that some person would be coming in front of Thikana Guest Hou.se. B Block Greater Kailash-1 carrying some narcotics, and he thereafter organi...
Stormac India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC290
1. The principal point of dispute in this appeal is whether the electric blower/fan assembled by the appellants inside the drier chamber manufactured by them was liable to Central Excise duty as an industrial fan under Item 33(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.2. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the appellants, inter alia, manufactured (i) Rotary Screen Printing Machine/Plant, (ii) Loop Steamer Machine/Plant and (iii) Impregnation Machine/Plant. These machines incorporate a drier chamber. The drier chamber is a huge box-like structure and its function is to dry, with hot air, the printed fabric/paper fed into it. The hot air circulates inside the chamber at a great pressure. Such circulation is provided by a blower/fan assembled by the appellants inside the drier chamber with the help of components purchased from the market. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 24-8-1983 for the period from 1-4-1979 to 28-2-1982. On adjudication, ...
C.C.E. Vs. Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC87
1. At the outset, we have for our consideration, an application filed by the respondents for permission to file additional evidence. This additional evidence comprises the following documents :- (i) An affidavit from the Managing Director in-charge of the respondent company stating that the application made under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is based on the records maintained by the company and are true to his knowledge. (ii) An order of Registration from the Director of Sugar and Registrar of Cooperative Societies for Co-operative Sugar Mills dated 29th June, 1978, which shows that on the said date, the Ulundurpet Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. was registered under Sub-secection (1) of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 enclosing the certificate of registration and the registered by-laws of the Society. (It authorised the Society to start functioning). (iii) A certificate in regard to the registration of the Ulundurpet Co-operative Sugar Mills...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »