Delhi Court September 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.
Universal Cans and Containers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC56
1. The issue involved is the application of Notification No. 40/CUS/78 dated 01-03-1978, Sl. No. 25 to the machine imported by the appellants.2. The Assistant Collector in his order has stated that the appellants had brought catalogue and samples to prove their contention that the item imported by them was covered by Sl. No. 25 of Notification No.40/CUS/78 and that the catalogue has stated "Machines for the manufacture of collapsible Tube, Seit 1913", covering Model AT which normally indicates that the machine is for manufacture of collapsible tubes. Catalogue of the manufacturer does not show that machine under reference is for "Rigid Cans" as stipulated in the Notification.Machine for manufacture of collapsible tube is not covered by Sl. No.25 of the table appended to Notification No. 40/CUS/78 and catalogue and invoice indicates that machines are for use for collapsible tubes and, therefore, the benefit of concessional assessment in terms of Notification No. 40/CUS/78 was not permi...
Avtar Chand Kehar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ481
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. By this petition the petitioner, a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (for short 'the Act'), seeks to have the order of detention quashed. The petitioner was detained in pursuance of an order dated 13-10-1988 made by Mr. K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under S. 3(1) of the Act. The order was made with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. The petitioner was communicated the grounds on which the order of his detention had been made as required under sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the Act. This is for the purpose of Clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. 2. There are various grounds challenging the detention of the petitioner but before us attack has been confined only to one ground as set out in para 11 of the petition, and this is as under :- '11. That the petitioner is advised that detenu's detention and continued detention is vitiated for p...
Vipul Dyes Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT724TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants were engaged, at the material time, in the manufacture of Synthetic Organic Dye Stuffs falling under Item 14D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule is hereinafter referred to as 'CET'). Some of the dye stuffs were exempt from payment of excise duty in terms of Notification 180/61 dated 23-11-1961 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the 'Rules' for short). With the issue of Central Excise Notification 71/78 dated 1-3-1978, the appellants became eligible for duty exemption on all synthetic organic dyestuffs manufactured by them subject, however, to the conditions set out in the notification. One of the conditions was that during the financial year the total value of the clearances eligible for duty exemption should not exceed rupees five lakhs. The notification did not contain a specific provision as to whether the value of clearances free of duty in terms of n...
Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC226Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises and directed against the Order No. V (48A) 15-59/Adj/86/30 dated Nil January, 1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune.2. The facts, in brief of the case, are that the appellants are manufacturers of Travel Goods such as suitcases, briefcases etc. in their factories at Bombay, Satara, Paithan & Waluj, all situated in the State of Maharashtra. The appellants-assessee manufacture Travel Bags of various sizes falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 48A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Among them, certain bags which were 26" in size were provided with a special type of bracket at the bottom. These brackets are fitted to these bags at the assessee's factory. These brackets are provided for fixing of wheels to the suit cases to enable them to be carried easily from place to place. These wheel kits are not manufactured by them but are purchased after due payment of duty. These Wheel Kits are accounted separately and supplied to the Deal...
Mahatha Petro Chemicals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC524Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the order-in-original dated 27-10-1987 wherein the Collector of Central Excise, Madras has confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,69,471.38 p. and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,52,000/- invoking Rule 9(2) read with proviso to Section 11A (i) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts of the case are that officers of the Headquarters Preventive Unit visited the appellants unit on 13-11-1985 and noticed that the appellants company, a small scale unit was registered under the Factory's Act from 1971 and were manufacturing Calibration oil, Synthetic pine tar, Petroleum jelly, Paraffin wax and refined wax Mahatone Factice falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff without taking out a Central Excise licence and clearing the same without paying the Central Excise duty and without observing other Central Excise formalities. The value of clearances and the products manufa...
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)ECC243
1. Facts of the case are that the appellants herein filed two classification lists - one for the period 1-4-1984 to 1-4-1986 and another with effect from 2-4-1986 - on 8-5-1987 for sulphuric acid used in silver Recovery Plant. It has been stated in the order-in-original, styled as Memorandum of Approval by the Proper Officer, dated 14-7-1987 that there is no meaning in approving the first classification list for the period 1-4-1984 to 1-4-1986 inasmuch as the appellant has sub motu paid the duty of Rs. 8,33,287.95 p. The second classification list effective from 2-4-1986 claiming the benefit of exemption notification 217/86 dated 2-4-1986 was modified by not accepting the claim of the appellant for benefit of the said notification on the ground that the input sulphuric acid is not liable to exemption because the final product silver is chargeable to nil rate of duty.2. Learned advocate Shri Lakshmikumaran for the appellants has urged that the lower authorities have not appreciated the...
O.N.G.C. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD329(Delhi)
1. This bunch of 28 appeals by the assessee i.e., M/s Oil & Natural Gas Commission, being the representative assessee of various technicians, numbering 28, is directed against identical orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer Under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, in respect of the above technicians to be erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and setting aside the same with the direction to pass the assessment orders de novo after disallowing the exemption of the income-tax paid by the Oil & Natural Gas Commission and to assess the same under the head "Other sources".2. Since identical issues are involved in these 28 appeals, these were heard together and as such we are disposing of these appeals by a common order. It was a common ground between the parties that facts in these appeals are identical, the submissions of the parties were also the same. I...
Pandit Ram Saroop and Another Vs. Balbir Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas158(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. This appeal is filed by the parents of the deceased, Naresh Kumar, who died in a road accident on May 3, 1978. He boarded bus No DLP- 6059 at the general store and was to get down at the Ordnance Depot, Shakurbasti, Delhi. The bus was plying on route No 914 running from Punjab Bagh to Nanglori. At the Ordnance Depot, the bus did not stop but went ahead for about ninety feet. When Naresh Kumar was getting down from the bus, the bus suddenly started moving. Naresh Kumar fell down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over him. he was taken to the hospital in the same bus by an eye witness, Som Dutt, but he died on the way. 2. Som Dutt, in his evidence, has fully supported this version of the accident. He has further stated that after running over the deceased, the bus driver tried to speed away but he along with Azad Singh, PW-4, intercepted the bus and brought it to a halt. He also stated that he took Naresh Kumar to the hospital in the same bus and informed the police statio...
Kuldip Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi113; 1989RLR490
Nag, J.(1) The disputes having arisen between the parties relating to 'Zone Contract for Zone No. 4/HQ under AEN? 1/Lucknow for the period ending 30-6-1978 staff colony, in Grp Lines, Cash & Pay colony Multi storeyed quatters. Hyder canal, old and new sick line colonies, Railway Institute & colony opposite goods shed, Lucknow station building goods shed area and whole of station yard, under Agreement No. 48/WA/Z4/CB/77-78 dated 29-7-77'. the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri J.S. Mundrey, then working as Chief Engineer (Construction) Northern Railway, now working as Executive Director, Civil Engineering, Railway Board, New Delhi by the General Manager. Northern Railway, New Delhi under his letter No. 63-W/44/158-D dated 20-11-1985 The arbitrator after having considered the statement of facts, counter statement of facts, all other papers filed before him heard the parties, considered all arguments and evidences and gone through all material papers and documents placed ...
Nirmal Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT517; 1990(18)DRJ30; 1989RLR513
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus to be issued to the respondent Corporation directing it to transfer to the petitioners the ownership of the residential flats which are occupated by them. (2) The facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. The petitioners were the employees of the respondent corporation. The Corporation had, out of its own funds, constructed staff quarters at Mandelian Road, Bhamashah Market, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. These quarters (which have also been called flats) were allotted to the various petitioners, from time to time, during the course of their employment with the respondent. On such allotment being made the petitioners became liable to pay to the respondent license fee. The respondents had also constructed other staff quarters at different localities in Delhi. One such place where quarters were constructed was Nimri. (3) The contention of the petitioners is that the Corporation had passed various resolutions whereby it had been...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »