Delhi Court May 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.
Duncan Tobacco Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1989
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT180TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 141/83(G), dated 5-10-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. We have heard Shri G.K. Mookherjee, Advocate, for the appellants and Mrs. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the respondent Collector.3. The instants appeal was filed by Duncan Tobacco Co. However, it has been prayed by an application that the appellants name be changed to "New Tabacco Company Limited". In support of this prayer, the Calcutta High Court's order dated 17-8-1984 on Company Petition No. 280 of 1984 has been produced. After hearing both sides and perusing this order we allow the prayer and direct that the name of the appellant be changed from Duncan Tabacco Co. to New Tobacco Co. Ltd. 4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the Superintendent of Central Excise, by his notice dated 22-12-1982 called upon the appellants to show cause why a sum of Rs. 16,20,256.82 should not be demanded from them on account of excise duty in respect...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR330(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that action under section 147(b) has not been validly taken in this case by ignoring the material fact that the Income-tax Officer has recorded proper reasons before initiation of such action ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. The assessed was dealing at that time in Ambassadors cars, mini buses, scooters, etc. The original assessment was made under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act on August 26, 1977. On January 9/11, 1979, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessed which was served on January 12, 1979. A return wa...
Mangalam Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1989
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT444(Del)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company which manufactures cement and the short question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to when did it start its production. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that vide a Notification dated 29th April, 1987 the Central Government, in exercise of its powers contained in Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, exempted certain category of cement which was 'manufactured in a factory which has commenced production during the period commencing of the first day of January, 1982 and ending with 31st March, 1986 ......', from so much of the duty of excise livable thereon which was in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 205/- per tonne. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the word 'production' means commercial production, and if any cement had been produced during trial runs that would not be taken into consideration in seeing as to whether the Notification in question would be applicable or not. According to the peti...
K.S. Bawa Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC25(Delhi); ILR1989Delhi243
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) (RULE D.B.)-- Tue petitions was a Member of the Indian Administrative Service (1951 Batch). Sometime in the month of October, 1975. he was deputed to serve the International Labour Organisation sad was appointed at the I.L.O's office at Bangkok (Thailand). He took poultry retirement from the Indian Administrative Service w.e.f. 29-2 -80 but continued to serve the I.L.O. till his retirement on 12th March, 1987. Before returning to India, the petitioner placed an order for the purchase of Isuzu Gemini Lt Delux 1500 cc diesel car and paid the invoice value id foreign exchangs. As per the requirements of the import policy and other instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time in this regard, the petitioner applied for permission to import the car. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports vide his order dated 7th May, 1987 refused the permission on the ground that. 'the period of 5 years from the date of the import of the earlier car is not yet over...
income Tax Officer Vs. Oswal Emporium.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD241(Delhi)
ORDERPer S. S. Mehra, J. M. -The revenue in their present appeal have taken, inter alfa, the following grounds :'1. The ld. CIT (A) was not justified in accepting the book result and the G. P. rate of 42 per cent as against 44 cent applied by the ITO, under direction of the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax without properly appreciating the facts of the case.2. The 1d. CIT (A) was not justified in treating the counter sales of Rs. 11,25,829 at per with the export sales of Rs. 20,612 for allowing weighted deduction under section 35B of the IT Act.'2. The first ground is to the effect that the 1d. CIT (A) was not justified in accepting the book result and the g. p. rate of 42 per cent as against 44 per cent applied by the ITO. The assessed is a registered firm by status and maintains its accounts on mercantile basis. Accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1980. On a total turnover of Rs. 38,83,847 the assessed appears to have declared a gross profit of Rs. 14,52,165, accor...
Syed Abdul Hameed Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC72Tri(Delhi)
1. An interesting question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal has arisen in this case.2. Brief facts relevant to the question under consideration are as follows :- A spot adjudication order No. 4830/87 dated 17-11-1987 has been passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Cargo Unit, Cargo Complex, Palam.3. Prima facie in view of the designation of the authority passing the aforesaid order of adjudication, it should have been appealed against to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellant has, however, filed an appeal to the Tribunal on the presumption that the officer Shri K.S. Sivaraman, who has passed the aforesaid order has been appointed as Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi w.e.f. 8-12-1986. The learned Consultant for the appellant has taken support from an Order No. 21/87 published in the Gazette of India, October 10,1987 [Part I - Section 2] Page 1224. In order to appreciate the controversy, we set out below the order reproduced ...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC10
1. The appellant M/s. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. (Paper Division) Saila Khurd, District (Hoshiarpur) has filed this appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 against the impugned order in Annexure A-l passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting their appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Jullundur in Annexure A-2 holding them liable for Rs. 8,46732 P. on the Fibre Recovery plant under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not granting them the benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of paper falling under Tariff Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. The raw materials have to pass to the stage of pulp before the finished stage of paper is attained. The process of preparation of pulp involves grinding the raw materials and making a paste after mixing in water. The water keeps on drainin...
M/S. Moghul Travels and Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi56; 38(1989)DLT244; 1989(17)DRJ126
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the legal and constitutional validity of acquisition of petitioner's land situated in the revenue estate of Village Tughlakabad, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi vide Notification No. F9(16)/80-L & B dated 5th November, 1980 under S. 4, Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Notification No. F9(2 l)/85-L & B) 15908 dated 6th June, 1985 under S. 6 of the Act. The rule nisi was issued vide orders dated Sth October, 1985 by a Division Bench of this Court.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset that he limits his challenge to Notification No. F.9(2l)/85-L & B 15908 dated 6th June, 1985 under S. 6 of the Act and not to notification under S. 4 of the Act and I think it rightly so.3. As regards the notification under S. 6 of the Act, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that th...
industrial Finance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Century Metals Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)DLT550
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) Industrial Finance Corporation of India, (IFCI for short), a statutory body established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), advances medium and long term credits, amongst others, to industrial concerns in India, particularly in circumstances where normal banking accommodation is inappropriate or recourse to capital issue methods is impracticable. It is em powered under the Act, inter alia, to grant loans or advances to industrial concerns on the security of mortgage, pledge, hypothecation etc. of moveable and immoveable properties of such industrial concerns.(2) The Ifci, as petitioner No. 1, sets out following facts, that have necessitated a petition to this Court, invoking provisions of Section 30 of the Act , M/s. Century Metals Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Company), with its registered office at 86/87, Model Basti, New Delhi, respondent No. 1 here...
Pride Construction Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR211(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT340; 1989(17)DRJ117
Sananda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner was awarded a contract for the work of contraction of 936 Janta House Pocket V (Poorvi) at Pitampura, Sh : Construction of 888 Janta House by respondent no, I wide agreement No. 2/EE/HDXXVI/83-84. On disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, as provided in the agreement, disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent no. 2 by the appointing authority vide letter dated 10.4.1985 The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and made and published bids award on 24 24.4.1987(2) A petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act and pursuant to a notice issued by this Court, respondent no. 2 filed the award and the proceedings in this Court. Notices of the filing of the award were sent to respective parties and the respondent no. 1 Delhi Development Authority filed its objections against the award. This order will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent.(3) It was contended by the learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »