Delhi Court August 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.
Arva Cabinet House Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC181Tri(Delhi)
1. Both the appellants manufacture TV cabinets from commercial plywood.During the period 1-4-1979 to 26-11-1982 and from 1-4-1979 to 25-11-1982 respectively they manufactured such TV cabinets and cleared them without payment of duty. During this period Notification No.104/82-C.E. as amended from tune to time was in force. According to this Notification handicrafts were exempt and it appears to have been the understanding of the appellants that TV cabinets were covered by this Notification and, therefore, no duty was payable thereon.2. The Central Excise authorities visited the appellants' factory on 26-11-1982 and 25-11-1982 and made seizures of documents and some TV cabinets. Allegations were made and both the appellants were asked to show cause why duty should not be demanded on the TV cabinets cleared by them during the period 1-4-1979 to 26-11-1982 and from 1-4-1979 to 25-4-1982 respectively and why penalty should not be imposed on them.Both the appellants pleaded that TV cabinets...
P.N. Tuli Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD121(Delhi)
1. These are four second appeals by the assessee against the levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) for delay in the filing of returns of wealth-tax.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.Asst.Year Due date of Date of filing Wealth tax Penalty return assessed levied1967-68 31.7.67 5.10.77 363 30,7801968-69 31.7.68 5.10.77 380 1,06,0001970-71 31.7.70 20.12.83 1543 98,1561971-72 31.7.71 20.12.83 1540 33,010 In response to notices under Section 274 the assessee is said to have stated that there was no addition in the assets and the WTO went on increasing the valuation without placing any material or basis under the law. The assessee is further said to have contended that he was filing revision petitions before the CWT. These contentions did not find favour with the WTO and he levied the aforesaid amounts as penalty.4. For assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 the WTO has calculated th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagat and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR212(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner wants a direction to be issued to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing the Department's appeal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order canceling the direct assessment made on the firm under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act bringing to tax the sum of Rs. 10,13,388 in the hands of the firm (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,14,388 is not taxable as income either under section 28(1) or under section 41(1) or under section 189 or even under section 176(3A) merely because section 176(3A) was added to the statute book with effect from April 1, 1976 ' 2. The assessment year in question is 1971-72. The respondent was a partnership firm which was formed on N...
Shashi Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT204
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Mr. Rajinder Dutt wishes to the place on record an affidavit in Court today. Let the affidavit be taken on record. (2) Rule D.B. (3) Counsel for the parties pray that the matter be disposed of here and now. Consequently, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition. (4) The main prayer in this writ petition is for a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to register the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner in respect of the land mentioned in the writ petition without insisting on a 'No objection Certificate' and/or declare that no permission/No Objection Certificate is required under the provisions of Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. (5) The respondents have filed a reply which has been taken on record. The respondents concede the position that the Kharsa Nos. for which 'No Objection Certificates' have been applied for are not presently notified. In Para 9 of their reply they have admitted that there is no notification pertaining to the said land under Sect...
inder Mohan Agnish Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC241
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,68,600/-on account of damage alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff as a result of accident which according to the plaint was caused by rash and negligent act of the employees of defendant acting during the course of the employment. In the plaint it is alleged that because of said rash and negligent act, the plaintiff fell unconscious on the road with grevious injuries. The details of injuries have been given in the plaint.2. The suit is being contested by the defendants who have inter alias denied the injuries as also the fact that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the employees of the defendant.3. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:1. Whether the plaintiff met with an accident on January 26, 1977 with the horse/horses of the defendant ?2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the accident was due to any negligence on the part of any employee or em...
Poplawski Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC643(Delhi)
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order of detention dated 17th June, 1988 passed by respondent No. 2 Shri R.K. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3(1) and the declaration dated 20th July,1988 passed under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA in short) against the petitioner who is a Polish national. The said detention order was allegedly passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. The petitioner had arrived at Calcutta Airport on 5.5.1988.2. Although a number of grounds have been taken in this petition for quashing the detention order the only ground pressed before me is that since the passport of the petitioner had been seized by the Customs Officer on the da...
Metal Board Containers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC424Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dis-satisfied with the rejection of the refund claim as time barred, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : The appellants preferred their claim for refund of duty on 25-2-1983 paid during the period from 24-3-1982 to 29-3-1982 stating that the duty was paid under protest. However, the Asstt.Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Ghaziabad rejected the same findings as follows: "It is stated that the party had paid duty under protest. The protest was lodged in the Divisional office where it was entered as receipt No. 874 dated 20-3-1982. On GP 1 dated 24-3-1982 to GP 13 dated 29-3-1982, the duty is said to have been paid under protest. This protest however is regarding exemption admissible under T.I. 17(4) which according to the party should have been allowed to them. In the present case, I find that there is no protest to the effect that duty was not payable under T.I. 68 and was permissible under T.1.17(4). As such this protest is not rele...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Harrison Synthetic Bristles Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC171Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I has preferred this appeal against the order dated 22-9-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by which he had set aside the order dated 16-11-1979 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise of erstwhile Division-K of the Collectorate and holding that the respondents herein have to pay duty only on the amount of job charges collected by them from their customers. The respondents manufacture tooth brushes falling under Tariff Item 68 on job work basis and for this purpose, they get materials from M/s. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. The respondents filed a classification list claiming exemption under Notification No. 119/75, dated 30-4-1975. The Assistant Collector denied the exemption claimed in the classification list by the respondents on the ground that entirely different articles were manufactured by the respondents and as such they were not eligible for the exemption as contained in Notification 119/75 for jo...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Muzzaffarnagar Steels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC47Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The learned Jt. C.D.R. stated that the main issue involved in this matter is whether Runners and Risers arising during the course of manufacture of steel ingots were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 237/75.3. The learned Collector (Appeals) has held that Runners and Risers are steel ingots or steel melting scrap depending upon what they are fit for and that the relevant notifications are applicable not only to steel ingots but also to steel melting scrap.4. It was his submission that the order of the learned Collector (Appeals) was contrary to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ravindra Steels. The learned Collector (Appeals) has himself said so in so many words and not followed the ratio of that order on the ground that all the points were not pressed before or brought to the notice of the Tribunal.5. The learned Collector (Appeals) has inter alia referred to General Claus...
Nirmal Puri Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT476
Santosh Dnggal, J.(1) The bail petition moved on behalf of Lt. Gen. Nirmal Puri arrested on 6th January, 1989, for offence under section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/5 of the Official Secrets Act. 1923 and substantive offences under Sections 3/5 of the said Act has been heard at length. (2) A reading of the Fir reveals that the petitioner faces grave charge of having entered into a criminal conspiracy with his co-accused Vinod Khanna, Chairman of Concorde Industrial (Pvt.) Ltd.. a firm stated to be dealing with procurement of equipments for defense Forces, and representative of various foreign firms, like Saab Missiles, Saab Instruments, M/s. Nisar Spa etc. and in pursuant to the alleged conspiracy having passed on secret/ classified official information, containing defense secrets, to his coaccused in respect to certain matters, the disclosure whereof was likely to jaopardise sovereignty and integrity, or Security of lndia. (3) The case was registered, as a sequel to re...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »