Delhi Court November 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC202
1. These two appeals came for hearing on merit on 26-10-1989. The respondents did not appear for personal hearing. However, in their letter No. BI/455/4783 dated 20-10-1989, they requested that the matters maybe decided on merits in their absence on the basis of the written submissions sent alongwith that letter. Accordingly, we have heard Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR for the appellant-Collector and have gone through the records of the case.2. In their written submissions the respondents have stated that they were manufacturing Glycerin which was exempted from special excise duty upto 18-6-1980. From 19-6-1980, the above product was subject to special excise duty. The respondents had certain finished stock on 18-6-1980 out of the goods manufactured by them prior to 19-6-1980.Those goods were cleared from the factory after 19-6-1980. The question arose as to whether the respondents were liable to pay special excise duty on the stock which was manufactured prior to 19-6-1980, but was cl...
Unique Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC247
1. The appellant has been engaged in manufacturing of 'Patent and proprietary medicines' covered by Tariff Items 14E and holds Central Excise Licence. IFFIUNIK Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IFFIUNIK) started its factory in the year 1981 and both the factories are located adjacent to each other in the same compound.IFFIUNIK purchased two boilers and as it was required to install these boilers at some distance from its plant and it had limited land area, the appellant permitted IFFIUNIK to install its two boilers in the appellant's boiler room. These two boilers are connected by pipelines to the IFFIUNIK's factory only. As contended by the appellant, IFFIUNIK manufacture its steam in these two boilers for consumption in its factory.2. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector visited the appellant's factory on 28-9-1983 and thereafter the Range Superintendent visited the appellant's factory and made a panchnama and statements of concerned persons were recorded under...
Harbans Singh and Others Vs. Smt. Gurcharan Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1591; I(1990)DMC416
ORDER1. This petition has been brought under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate under S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It has been pleaded by the petitioners that the said offence punishable under S. 4 of the Act cannot be taken cognizance of as the same is barred by limitation. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Gurcharan Kaur, respondent has filed a complaint against the present petitioners and two other persons, namely, Jang Bahadur Singh and Sukhjit Bahadur Singh, making allegations that her marriage was performed with Gursharan Singh on July 12, 1981, at Delhi and at the time of the settlement of the marriage, the petitioners had demanded dowry items comprising of T.V., fridge and scooter or Rs. 20,000/- in lieu thereof besides other items of dowry which are given at the time of marriage normally. It was mentioned that the complainant's father had expre...
Orient General Industries Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC451
1. The point for decision in this case is whether central excise duty on regulators for fans below 107 cm sweep would attract duty at 15% ad valorem under Sr. No. 3 sub-item No. (3) of Notification No.46/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 or they should be assessed at the rate of 71/2 ad valorem under Sr. No. 2 sub-item No. (3)(a) of the said notification. The authorities below have held that these regulators are assessable at 15% ad valorem under Sr. No. 3 of the Notification, whereas the appellants' claim is for assessment under Sl. No. 2 sub-item No. (3)(a).2. The learned advocate Shri A.K. Jain for the appellants has stated during the hearing before us that the fans were of 104 cm sweep.Regulators for these ceiling fans were supplied with the fans. Duty on the regulators was charged under Sr. No. 3 of the Notification referred to above at 15% ad valorem. The period is related to 1-3-1984 onwards.The learned advocate has argued that ceiling fans include regulators.For this argument he has rel...
international Computers Indian Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC83
1. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 30-11-1977 passed by the Special Adjudicator in the Office of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Facts in brief are that the head-office and factory premises of appellants International Computers Indian Manufacture (ICIM) and the residential premises at Bombay of appellant S. Mookherjee, the Commercial Manager and P.A. to the Managing Director of ICIM along with the premises of International Computers (India) Ltd. (ICL) at Bombay were searched under the Customs Act, 1962 between 4-1-1969 and 9-1-1969 and some goods and documents were seized. ICL is the sole distributor for sale and distribution in India of ICIM's products under an agreement. ICIM were licensed to produce certain types of data processing equipment for Indian market and surrounding countries. The production included manufacture, assembly, re-building and factoring.ICIM get the components, spares, used machines and other raw material only from ICL which is the parent firm...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Inex Engine Valves
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC238
1. This is an appeal directed against an Order dated 12th September, 1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay which has been preferred by Collector, Central Excise, Pune by which the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the Order dated 7th June 1983 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune V Division classifying goods manufactured by the respondents herein namely "Pin (Injection Timer Mounting)" under Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff. The facts in brief are the respondents are manufacturers of products named above which were earlier classified by the Department under Central Excise Tariff Item 68 covering goods not elsewhere Central Excise in the Tariff. The respondents filed classification list effective from 6th August 1982 claiming the classification of item namely "Pin (Injection Timer Mounting)" under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector felt that the product is classifiable item Tariff Item under 52 of Central Excise Tar...
Jagdish Chander and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT233; 1990(18)DRJ204; 1990RLR90
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of letter dated May 9, 1987 by which the Investigating Officer investigating the case pertaining to Fir No. 1 14 of 1987 under Sections 380, 467, 468, 470 and 420 of Indian Penal Code had intimated the Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. restraining them from handing over any immovable property standing in the name of the petitioner, petitioner's wife and in the name of any other member of the petitioner's family as the investigation in the aforesaid case was pending. The copy of the letter issued by the Investigating Officer was not filed Along with the writ petition as no such letter has been served on the petitioner by the Investigating Officer. The contents of the said letter have been read out in Court from the Police File. It is useful to re-produce the contents of the said letter which is dated May, 1987. 'To The Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Limited, Kast...
Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: (1990)(28)LC416Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application for modification of stay order No. 113/89-A dated 28th June, 1989.2. It is submitted that Rs. 2,41,77,994/- which was referred to by this Tribunal as net profit is not actually a net profit but is net accumulated loss. The bank balance of Rs. 30, 10,431/- is not enough to meet their requirement of a months working capital as they have to pay over Rs. 50 lakhs central excise duty and Rs. 8 lakhs sales tax, and Rs. 6 lakhs wage bill. He also submitted that the accumulated loss is as on 31st March, 1989 is Rs. 352 crores. The company is a sick company and is under nursing programme of the banks since 1984. The unit is being funded at subsidised rates of interest under specific instructions of Reserve Bank of India for rehabilitation, by the Union Bank of India, New Delhi and Canara Bank of India, Faridabad.Therefore, it is submitted, if the appellants are directed to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs it would result in irreparable loss and hardship to them, and prayed for dis...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ255
V.B. Bansal, J. 1. Ramesh Kumar s/o Parbhat was tried for the offence of murder under S. 302, I.P.C, on the allegations that on 3rd July, 1983 at 7.45 p.m. at Chowk Argarha, Chandni Chowk. Delhi committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Dinesh Kumar and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. He has been found guilty of the said offence and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further R.I. for one month vide judgment and order dated 25th April, 1986 by Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. Feeling aggrieved from his conviction and sentence Ramesh Kumar has filed this appeal. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is as under :- Dinesh Kumar was brought to the casualty of LNJPN Hospital, New Delhi by Raju (PW 3) with alleged history of having been stabbed by some one. The injured was examined by Dr. Akshay Bhardwaj vide MLC (OPD Card) Ext. PW 17/A proved by Record Clerk K. K. Chhiba...
Ritu Makkar and ors. Vs. Delhi College of Engineering and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT579; 1990(18)DRJ150
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) As common questions arise in these five writ petition, this judgment disposes of all of them. . The petitioners in Civil Writ No. 2537 of 1989 are (1) Miss. Ritu Makkar, (2) Mr. Mahesh Kumar N. Chandwani, (3) Mr. Maninder S. Rana. In Civil Writ Petition No. 2700 of 1989 Ms. Seema is the petitioner. In Civil Writ Petition No. 2757 of 1989 Ms. S. Shobha and Ms. S. Pushpa are the petitioners. M/s. Rohit Dewan, Virender Kumar Kaira, Dinesh Sehgal and Ms. Shoma Chatterjee have filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2798 of 1989. The fifth petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 2856 of 1989) has been filed by Dinesh Main. The respondents in alt these petitions arc (1) Delhi College of Engineering, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, (2) Delhi Institute of Technology, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and (3) Delhi Administration.(2) The petitioners in all the five petitions appeared in the Senior School Certificate Examination (12 years course) of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (hereina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »