Delhi Court December 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.
Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC120Tri(Delhi)
1. Both the appeals involve common issues and are hence being disposed of by a common order.2. The appeals arise from the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 20th June, 1984, confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, rejecting the refund claims of the appellants as time barred.3. The facts of this case are that the appellants, who are a composite textile mill, manufacture, inter alia, man-made fabrics falling under Tariff Item 22 on which duties of excise are levied under the following enactments :- 4. Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Act, 1978 5. Khadi & Other Village Industries (Addl. Excise duty on Cloth) Act, 1953.4. Exemption Notifications were issued by the Government of India in respect of Tariff Item 22 goods, granting exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellants contended that the Department had collected duties of ex...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sonal Offset Press
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD582(Delhi)
1. In this Departmental appeal filed for the asst. year 1982-83 the only ground raised is as follows:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned AAC erred in allowing depreciation twice on the same set of machinery used in the same assessment year by the assessee before and after death of one of the partners? 2. In this case two returns were filed for the asst. year 1982-83.During the asst. year under consideration, one of the partners of the assessee firm died and a new partnership deed was executed. It was, therefore, a case of succession of one firm by another. Depreciation was claimed for both the periods. The first period commenced from 1-1-1981 up to 18-7-1981. The ITO, however, did not allow full depreciation but only allowed depreciation proportionately.3. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) before whom it was stated that the assessee firm was constituted by four partners namely, Smt. Bimla Jain, Smt. Satish Jain, Smt. Neelam Jain and Shri Rajesh Jain. On 1...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ganga Pershad Kedia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR30(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. In this petition under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, the petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that non-adherence to the provisions of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, did not justify the conclusion that the order of assessment was erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?' 2. The Wealth-tax Officer had taken 1/3rd share of the respondent in the property of Rs. 1,06,205 as against Rs. 61,715 which was returned by the assessed. It appears that this valuation was accepted by the assessed. The total value of the property was taken by the Wealth-tax Officer at the value of Rs. 3,18,615. The assessment order was accepted but the Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed an order under section 25(2) revising the order. He was of the opinion that section 16A was applicable and that the Wealth-tax Officer should have r...
Raman Mohan Gautam Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT205
S.B. Wad, J.1. '13. The petitioner apprehends that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally had acted in omission and commission so that the Maruti car allotted to the petitioner on 2.2.1987 was delivered to some other persons whom the respondents wished to oblige. In the alternative, the petitioner apprehends that despite the respondents assertions to the effect that a seniority list is prepared on the basis of the date of payment, this list was not adhered to and persons below the petitioner (i e. persons who had made full payment after 2.2.1987 were delivered their cars prior to the petitioner in order to oblige and curry favor which such persons. The petitioner believes that even green Maruti cars (which colour choice had been added by the petitioner to his initial colour choice of brown and blue on the advice of respondent No. 3) have been delivered by respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 and its other Agents/Dealers in Delhi to customers who had made full payment after ...
Metra Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ9
P.K. Kartha, J.(1) In this batch of applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the Casual Labourers of the Railway Mail Service (RM.S.) Division of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, common questions of law have been raised in regard to their regularisation in Group 'D' posts and the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to them. In view of this, it is proposed to deal with them in a common judgment. (2) We have carefully gone through the. records of these cases and have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. We may, at the outset, discuss the legal position applicable and thereafter consider the reliefs to which the applicants are entitled to in the light of the facts and circumstances of each of these applications. A Pull Bench of this Tribunal has held in Rehmat Ullah Khan and others v. Union of India and others 1989(2) Slj 293, that although a Casual Labourer does not bold a civil post, be is ...
Mohd. Quresh Vs. Roopa Fotedar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi16; 1990RLR112
Bahri, J.(1) In this civil revision brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated December 17, 1986, made by an Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a learned Single Judge has made a reference on the question of law to be decided by this Bench. The relevant portion of the reference remembered order is reproduced as follows : 'The learned Additional Rent Controller has relied on a judgment of this Court in 'Food Corporation of India v. Smt. Usha Bhardwaj' 1986(2) Rcj 52(1), for the proposition that the Rent Controller has no power to extend the period of limitation for putting in appearance and filing an application for leave to defend. I have been referred to two contrary judgments of this Court. The first one is by M. L. Jam, J., in Surinder Kumar v. Prem Kumar. 1980 Rlr 621(2), and t...
Gladwyn EdwIn Moffat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: 1990(27)LC300(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quotient of the detention order dated April 26,1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and the declaration dated May 17, 1988, issued by respondent No. 5 under Section 9(1) of the said Act.2. It is not necessary to refer to various grounds in support of the writ petition as this petition is liable to succeed on a very short point.3. It has been pleaded in para 15 of the writ petition that the representation dated August 6, 1989, had been made to the declaring authority for revocation of the detention, but the said representation has not been dealt with expeditiously and thus, there has taken place undue and unexplained delay in considering the said representation making the detention of the petitioner as illegal.4. In the counte...
Charanjit Grover Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD50(Delhi)
ORDERPer Agarwal, JM - This is an assesseds second appeal arising out of his assessment for assessment year 1985-86 and the only ground raised is about an addition of Rs. 2,70,000 in respect of unexplained investment in the purchase of an imported Toyota Corolla car No. DIC - 579.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessed and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material place before us.3. On the 5th March, 1986 there was a search at the residential premises of the assessed and the car in question was one of the four cars which were found in possession and control of the assessed and parked at his residence at 4, Ram Kishore Road, Delhi, According to the ITO the assessed had purchased this car from one Smt. Madhu Sethi and paid Rs. 2,70,000 as the price. On the other hand, the assesseds contention is that he had merely borrowed the car for going to a trip to Hardware and the car had been so borrowed by him only a day or two before the search. At the h...
Usha Rectifiers Corp (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC342Tri(Delhi)
1. In all these three appeals, the appellants have challenged the correctness of the orders-in-original passed by Addl. Collector of Customs, New Delhi vide orders C. No. 14/87 dated 31-1-1987 in respect of Bill of Entries No. 27371 dated 31-5-1986 and No. 004559 dated 18-1-1987 and by another order-in-original No. 541/87 dated 8-4-1987 in respect of Bill Of Entry No. 27372 dated 31-5-1986. All the three appeals have been heard together and they are disposed off by this common order.2. Appeal No. 1324/87 and 1325/87 arise from a common order-in-original No. 14/87 and 15/87 dated 31-1-1987. In this order, the Addl. Collector of Customs has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh in respect of goods namely sub-assemblies described as main drive system valued at Rs. 1,99,646/- covered under Bill of Entry No. 27371 dated 31-5-1986 and another valued at Rs. 63,774.06 covered by Bill of Entry No. 004559 dated 28-1-1987. A penal penalty of Rs. 25.000/- has also been impose d on the importer ...
Himco Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC428Tri(Delhi)
1. Show cause notice dated 28-1-1977 alleged contravention of the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the basis of the following allegations given in the show cause notice :- "Inasmuch as the Audit Party of Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh during the course of Audit of Accounts of the said licensee for the period from 4/73 to 3/76 found that the party had cleared excisable goods valued Rs. 1,22,118 from the factory without payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 9158/; leviable on the goods under gate passes during the period 19-7-1973 to 17-7-1973* without debiting the amount of duty in their personal Ledger Account. The production and the clearance of the goods appears to have not been accounted for in the R.G.I Register of the party. The details of all such clearances are enc!6sed herewith as Annexure A." 2. Accordingly, the appellants herein were asked to show cause as to why duty of Rs. 9158/- should not be demanded from them...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »