Delhi Court February 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.
Elecon (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC344Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured goods falling under T.I. 63 and availed of the benefit of concessional assessment based on the invoice price in terms of Notification 120/75. For convenience of reference, the said notification is reproduced below: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), cleared from the factory of manufacture, on sale, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the invoice price (excluding duty and local taxes, if any, included in such price) charged by the manufacture for the sale of such goods : (i) the manufacturer files with the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction a writt...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jaiswal Art Press
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT550TriDel
1. These two appeals emanating from a common order impugned before us were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The question to be decided is whether danglers and dummies produced by the respondents are liable to duty under Item 17 or 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector held that dummy-pack-cum-danglers (red and white) were classifiable under Tariff Item 17(3) holding that the goods were nothing but flattened cartons.The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) after examining the samples of the products held that the goods were primarily advertising/publicity material and do not constitute packing material.He, therefore, ordered classification under Tariff Item 68-CET. Hence the present appeals filed by Revenue.3. We heard Shri Sundar Rajan, the learned Representative of the Department. The samples of the goods were produced before us and Shri Sundar Rajan referring to them submitted that as the goods were printed they were liable to duty...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Satish Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC522Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are a partnership concern having two units at two different places manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item 15A(2) and also the Tariff Item 68 in these two units. They filed a declaration before the Central Excise authorities on 20th April, 1982 in terms of Notification No. 111/78 seeking exemption from the Licensing control as the goods manufactured by them were exempt under Notifications No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971 and No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 and Notification No. 179/77. In one of their two units, they manufacture moulded articles out of duty paid raw materials and they brought the same to their other unit at Wadala for assembly without the aid of power. The Assistant Collector taking into account the quantum of their clearances made under Tariff Item 15A(2) and Tariff Item 68 cam...
Marudhar Cultivators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1992)41ITD147(Delhi)
Even if there is a finding given in income-tax assessment and even assuming that that finding had become final, still that only pertains to the income-tax assessment namely that no business was carried on but that does not mean that the building ceased to be used for business purposes. If the building was so ceased to be used for business purposes, depreciation also would not have been allowed or would have been withdrawn. Therefore, non-user of the building in a particular year does not render the building used for business purposes to be a building used for a purpose other than business unless it was proved that the directors were using the building for residential purposes.The Commissioner of Wealth Tax was not justified in setting aside the assessment under section 25.1. The appellant-assessee, by its present appeal, challenges the order dated March 24, 1988, of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax, New Delhi, framed under Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessme...
Manju Narula Vs. K.L. Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1302; ILR1989Delhi364
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The petitioner, detained by means of detention order passed on 5th August, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), and served on her the same day, seeks a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order cr direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing her release forthwith, by quashing the order of detention, referred to above. (2) The detention order has been passed on the allegations that shir was closely, and actively associated in the activity of illicit trafficking, and transportation of narcotic drags (heroin), and that her detention was necessitated with a view to preventing her from engaging in the aforesaid activity. The petitioner made a detailed representation against her detention on 18th...
Wood Craft Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC86
1. When these stay applications came for hearing on 9.12.1988, Shri B.K. Gupta, learned S.D.R., raised a preliminary objection that the appeals had not been signed by the Principal Officer of the Company in accordance with the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 1982. Shri D.N.Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellant-applicants wanted to argue on the preliminary objection and the matters were adjourned to 13.1.1989.On 13.1.1989, when the matters were called, Shri Mehta made a request for adjournment on the ground that he wanted time to rectify the defect as was observed on 9.12.1988. The matters were, therefore, adjourned to 16.2.1989. On 16.2.1989, Shri Mehta stated that the appellant-applicants had rectified the defect by filing fresh appeals duly signed by the Vice-President (Finance) of the Company and the same were presented in the registry on 9.2.1989. Shri Gupta raised a preliminary objection stating that earlier, appeals filed by the appellant-applicants being defective, should b...
Mehra Sons Jewellers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC355Tri(Delhi)
1. Three subject reference applications are identically worded and have been filed against three different orders of the tribunal. Main order of the Tribunal is No. A/226/88-NRB dated 26-7-1988 ii appeal No.G/37/88-NRB. This main order has been relied upon in the other two orders passed in the other two appeals. When the reference applications were called the learned Advocate for the applicants was told that his applications did not formulate any questions of law. Infact the applicants state: "the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal suffers from serious legal lacunae and infirmities...". No questions have been formulated in the applications which, according to him, are required to be referred to the Supreme Court. The following two questions were then formulated by the learned Advocate which are as follows :- (i) Can an appellant be placed, on the point of his guilt, in a position worse than before he came in appeals (ii) Did the Appellate Tribunal go outside its functioning by trying to fi...
Geeta Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT76; 1989(16)DRJ338; 1989(24)ECC137
Bahri, J. (1) This appeal has been brought against order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 26/11/1988 by which he convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 21, N.D.P.S. Act and the subsequent order dated 30/11/1988 by which he sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac and in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.(2) According to the prosecution case S.I. O.P. Chauhan, PW-6 then posted in Police Station Delhi Cantt. on 22/5/1986 was patrolling the area accompanied by Constables Paras Ram and Mahabir Singh and had reached near railway gate of Brahmpun and while proceeding to Raghunagar at about 4.30 P.M. he received secret information that one woman was present near the drain of Sitapuri having heroin with her. He constituted the raiding party comprising of his two constables and allegedly requested 5 or 6 passers by to join the raiding party who expressed their inability and had gone aw...
Pradeep Nath Mathur Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi226
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is another petition in which a successive order of detention has been challenged. The petitioner Pradeep Nath Mathur was detained on 26th May, 1988 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Cofeposa Act) under a detention order dated the 24th May, 1988 passed by Shri K. L. Verma. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, a specially empowered officer. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board on 27th June, 1988. The reference was within the limitation of 'five weeks' prescribed under Section 8 of the Cofeposa Act. The Board, however, did not express any opinion within the prescribed period. The Government of India on 25th August, 1988, in exercise of powers conferred on them by Section 11(1) of the Cofeposa Act revoked the order of detention. The reason stated in that order (Annexure 'G' to the writ petition) for revocation is as follows : '2.Whereas the case ...
Vinay Choudhary Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi659
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The petitioner who has been challaned for an offence under Sections 302, 307 & 436, Indian Penal Code (for short Indian Penal Code ') and Section 27 of the Arms Art. has come up and filed this petition seeking bail. (2) The petitioner is stated to have killed a young college, girl who had allegedly refused to marry the petitioner by shooting her from very close quarter on her temple. On merits, even the learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing to say as far as the bail petitioner is concerned. However, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the investigation had not been completed by the police within 90 days and incomplete challan had been filed on December 4, 1988 and thus, under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr. P.C ') the petitioner has become entitled to bail. (3) I have gone through the record of the case and find wsi on December 4, 1988, which was a Sunday, the challan was put in before the Duty Magistrate an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »