Delhi Court March 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.
G.T.C. Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC49Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal No. 955/82-D was received in this Tribunal as a transferred proceeding under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Sail Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since the Revision Application filed before the Central Govt. in May 198? was pending on the date of inception of this Tribunal. The Order-in-Appeal No. 7-8/BD 2-3/82 dated 2-2-1982 which was the subject of challenge in the Revision Application had disposed of two appeals. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of this Tribunal, the appellants were called upon to file a supplementary appeal which they did in Nov. 1988 along with an application for condonation of the delay in filing the same. Since the requirement of the supplementary appeal arose in view of the practice of the Tribunal, Smt. V. Zutshi, the Departmental Representative, did not oppose the condonation of the delay. Since there was justification for the said delay, we condoned the delay and took up both the appeals together for hearing since they in...
Collector of Customs Vs. Living Media (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT359TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported goods described as Log Eeflo Automatic Film, Processor with standard accessories. The goods were assessed under Tariff Heading 90.10 of the Customs Tariff and the benefit of Notification No.11/77-Cus., dated 15-1-1977 was denied to them. The respondents filed a refund claim claiming the benefit of Notification No. 11/77 before the Assistant Collector and their plea for refund was turned down by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the said Notification covered only Film processor and not the combined film/paper processor not withstanding the fact that the equipment imported was for the printing industry. The said notification for convenience of reference is reproduced below : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is nece...
Niccoorissa Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC636Tri(Delhi)
1. In this matter, appellants imported goods which were described in the Bill of Entry as cross linked polythelene compound and were assessed to Auxiliary duty @ 40%. Subsequently, appellants claimed before the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund of duty based on Notification No. 67-Cus., dated 1.3.84. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, who held that the goods were semi conductive compound as per the Bill of Entry, which described them as cross linked polythelene compound. On the other hand, the relevant Notification exempted partially goods described as low density or medium density polythelene moulding powder/granules falling under Heading 39.01/06. He said that the description in the Bill of Entry did not conform to that under the Notification; nor had the importer produced any evidence that the goods did answer the description in the relevant notification.Accordingly, the claim was rejected.2. This view was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who obs...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemi Kleen India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR198(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Commissioner is seeking reference of two questions of law to this court. The same are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the cash credits of Rs. 17,640 assessed in the hands of the assessed as income from undisclosed sources without leading evidence as to their genuineness (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,00,000 made by the Income-tax Officer as income from undisclosed sources on account of alleged undeclared stocks hypothecated in the banks for obtaining loans, when there is no evidence with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for assuming that the loan was against some security other than the hypothecation of stocks ?' 2. In our opinion, both these questions are questions of fact. 3. Question No. 1 pertains to four entries in the books of account of the respon...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carvanserai Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: [1991]192ITR684(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has filed this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction that the Tribunal should state the case and refer two questions of law to this court : 2. It appears that the respondent-company was formed with the primary object of setting up a hotel. Accordingly to its memorandum of association, a large number of business activities could be undertaken by the respondent. For the purposes of this petition, the three objects which are relevant are as follows : 3. Firstly clause 14 of the main objects read as under : '14. To invest in companies, firms, co-operative societies and all institutions with these objects and to aid the same by loan, guarantee or other manner deemed fit by the company.' 4. Thereafter, comes Part B of the memorandum containing the objects and clause 9 thereof reads as follows : '9. To invest any moneys of the company not for the time being required for any of the purposes of the company...
Rajdev Singh and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR38(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is a petition under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction from this court to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court : '(1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in concluding that one-fourth of the total expenditure of Rs. 17,24,480 incurred on the rooms, bathrooms, restaurant and other appurtenant fittings is capital expenditure and such conclusion is based on evidence and material and evidence based on surmises and conjectures (2) Whether the expenditure of Rs. 17,24,480 incurred in maintaining 'Hotel Imperial' in good conditions is partly capital (one-fourth) and partly revenue (three-fourth) when neither the capacity of the hotel nor new items are added to such hotel (3) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that one-fourth of the total expenditure of Rs. 17,24,480 on keeping the hotel in good conditions, represented capital expenditure ?' 2. The petitioner had taken on lease a building ...
Rajinder Pal and ors. Vs. Man Mohan Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT164
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This petition for Contempt of Court has arisen in the following cricumstances.(2) The petitioners who are the owners landlords of premises No. F-20,Rajouri Garden New Delhi filed a petition for eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The petition was initially filed by late Smt. Karmawali against Late Shri Rajender Singh. During the pendency of the eviction petition Smt.Karmawali as also Shri Rajender Singh died and they were being represented by their respective legal heirs. After a prolonged trial for about ten years the petition was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller by orderdated 29.5,1966 and the respondents were granted the statutory period of six months to hand over the vacant possession. After the expiry of entire period of six months which expired on 29.11.1986 the respondents filed a revision petition in this Court, being C.R.(R) No. 926/86 on 1.12.1986. The said petition came u...
Taj Services Limited Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ6; [1989(58)FLR911]; ILR1989Delhi611; 1991LabIC637; (1990)IILLJ183Del
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the challenge is to the reference made by the Delhi Administration under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that, according to the petitioner, the company has a printing unit at NOIDA(U,P.). The workmen of the said unit raised a demand and proceedings commenced before the conciliation officer. Thereafter, an order was passed on 4th February, 1988 by the Labour Commissioner, Delhi, to the effect that reference of the dispute could not be made to the Industrial Tribunal as the printing division of the petitioner was located at Noida (Uttar Pradesh) and the Union Territory of Delhi was not empowered to adjudicate upon the matter. Subsequently the impugned order was passed on 28th March, 1989 whereby reference was made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal. There were three ...
M.K. Jamal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes348; 38(1989)DLT201
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This is a petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of the detention order dated May 22, 1988 passed under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act 1974 and the declaration dated July 6, 1988 passed under Section 9(1) of the said Act. (2) It is not necessary to refer to various grounds taken in the writ petition because (3) The learned counsel for the respondents-detaining authority has argued that these documents were not at all relevant and the detenu was aware of the contents of these documents and hence no prejudice is caused to the detenu for non-supply of the said documents. He has relied upon Yogendra Murarl v. Slate of U.P. 1988 (3) J.T. 351. In the cited case one of the pleas raised before the Supreme Court was that a copy of the application moved by the petitioner in that case by way of a counter case, had not been supplied to the petitioner. In dealing with this point in Para 10 o...
Kishore Kumar Mundhra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)Crimes67; 39(1989)DLT155; 1989(23)LC325(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought linker Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of detention order dated September 1. 1988, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'). The petitioner was alleged to have indulged in unauthorised compensatory payments to different persons in India under instructions of resident of Bangladesh. I need not refer to title facts in detail or to all the grounds urged before me because the writ petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground. (2) It has been pleaded in para 20 of the writ petition and in ground No. 1 that the petitioner had made representation dated November 7, 1988, which was delivered at the President's Secretariat but the same came to be rejected on November 30, 1988 and communication regarding the rejection of the representation was received by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »