Delhi Court January 1990 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Crescent Chemical Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT458TriDel
1. We have heard this Appeal on 20-9-1989 and dismissed it. Hereunder we set out our reasons for the same.2. The respondent is manufacturer of 'White Oil'. It had filed classification list dated 12-5-1975 classifying the product under T.I.11-B. Sample of the product was drawn on 14-7-1975 for chemical test by the Central Excise Department and as alleged the product answered to the description of refined diesel oil covered under T.I. 8-II(a) of Central Excise Tariff. So Supdt. Central Excise issued Show Cause Cum Demand Notice on 29-12-1976 calling upon the respondent for payment of duty amounting to Rs. 1,61,118.80 for the period July 1968 to 24 June 1976. The respondent asked for the basis of this Show Cause Notice. In reply thereof the Superintendent issued corrigendum dated 28-3-1977 wherein it was stated that the report of the Chemical Examiner was the document on which the Department was relying. The earlier Show Cause Notice was issued under provisions of Rules 9/10-A of the Cen...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shalaks Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC115Tri(Delhi)
1. Facts of the case as stated in Appeal Memorandum and in the Cross-Objections be briefly stated as under: 2. The respondents are engaged in manufacture of Olemessa Baby Massage Oil and E. Oil. They have started manufacturing O.B.M. Oil from November 1976 and E. Oil some time during 1979. They never paid Central Excise Duty, because at the beginning their clearances were within the exemption limit. In 1979 they received circular from Central Excise Department asking them to maintain a register of production and removal in the given form. In reply thereof the respondents by a letter dated 3.12.1979 explained that two items did not contain any perfume and were exempted from levy of excise duty under T.I. 14(F). Thereupon they received an intimation dated 10.12.1979 from the Department that they were not required to send monthly returns. Samples of both items were drawn by Central Excise Department on 4.1.1980. Factory premises of the respondent were again visited by the Central Excise ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K.L. Bhatia (No. 2)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR809(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioner is seeking reference with regard to house No. E-73, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The question posed is as to to whom the house belonged, namely, does it belong to the respondent or his wife. In respect of the earlier assessment year a similar question was referred in Income-tax Case No. 195 of 1987 (IT v. K. L. Bhatia [1991] 187 ITR 644, as per order dated January 10, 1990, and Income-tax Case No. 99 of 1989 as per order dated January 24, 1990 (CIT v. K. L. Bhatia (No. 1) : [1991]188ITR199(Delhi) . In view thereof, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,86,000 made by the Wealth-tax Officer, on account of value of property at E-73, Kalkaji, New Delhi ?' 2. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Flowmore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR274(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. We have heard the parties and, in our opinion, the following question of proposed in this application should be stated by the Tribunal and referred to this court :'(1) whether, on fact and in the circumstance of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in interpreting the contract for supply assembly, erection, commissioning and supervision of pump sets of Greaves Cotton and Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and for design manufacturing, testing at manufactures' works, dispatch and delivery at the site of butterfly valves as simple contract of sale' and not 'contracts of works' (2) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstance of the cases, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the sale of pump sets and butterfly valves, according to the terms and condition of the contract, was complete, concurrently with the delivery (3) whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that in respect of two contracts dated January 1, 1976 and July 23, 1978, with the Madhya Pr...
Ravinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT84
Malik, J.(1) We may at the outset notice that this petition has a chequered career inasmuch as it first went to a learned single Judge of this court who by an order dated 11th of December 1985 following the judgment of the Supreme Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned detention order under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act) subject to certain conditions. But when the writ petition came up for final hearing before another learned single Judge of this court, he noticed two Division Bench judgments of this court conflicting on the point whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not before the detention order is actually served upon the detenu and executed. The learned single Judge by his order dated 14th of August 1987 thereforee was of the view that to resolve the conflict between the two Division Bench jud...
Ram Kishan Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: 1990(18)DRJ190
S.B. Wad, J.(1) In this second appeal the only question is whether the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on 11-11-86. In the impugned order passed by the Tribunal it has been held that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction ab-initio and, thereforee, the Rent Controller could not have passed the order under Section 15(7). The reason given by the Tribunal is that when the petition was filed by the landlord for the eviction of tenant in July 1985 the Rent Control Act was not applicable to the premises. The Tribunal, thereforee, took the view that the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction either to pass the order under Section 15(1) or 15(7). This order is challenged in this second appeal.(2) As stated above the eviction petition was filed in July 1985. Written statement was filed on 28th September 1985 and no objection to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was taken. On 8-3-1986 the notification was issue...
Jaipal Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT415
I.K. Rasgotra, Adm. Member (1) The applicants vide application dated 1.12.1989 have challenged the action of the respondents in giving promotion to SC/ST candidates to certain categories over and above the percentage of 15/o for Sc and 7 1/2 for St respectively. By way of relief, the applicants have sought that the respondents may be directed : (A)to promote the applicants to the higher grades from the dates from which their juniors SC/ST employees have been promoted over and above their prescribed quota : (b) to fill up the existing vacancies in the higher grade of certain categories in accordance with the law as pronounced by the Allahabad High Court, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Jodhpur Bench and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (c) to give original seniority to the general category employees when they join SC/ST employees in the higher grades, in which junior SC/ST employees had been promoted by virtue of reservation for SC/ST. (2) After hear...
Ravinder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: 1990(30)LC190(Delhi)
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. We may at the outset notice that this petition has a chequered career inasmuch as it first went to a learned single Judge of this Court who by an order dated 11th of December, 1985 following the judgment of the Supreme Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act) subject to certain conditions. But when the writ petition came up for final hearing before another learned single Judge of this Court, he noticed two Division Bench judgments of this Court conflicting on the point whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not before the detention order is actually served upon the detenu and executed. The learned single Judge by his order dated 14th of August, 1987 thereforee was of the view that to resolve the conflicts between the two D...
income-tax Officer Vs. Dr. Ela Anand Arpna Trust.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD117(Delhi)
ORDERPer Bakhshi Manzoor Ahmed, JM - This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the AAC of the Income-tax, N-Range, New Delhi and dispute relates to assessment but in respect of which the title has not been transferred by a registered document.2. The brief facts giving to this appeal are that the assessed along with three others were the co-owners of the building styled as Sen Nursing Home. This building was sold to Ansal & Sehgal Property Pvt. Ltd. vide an agreement of sale executed on 15-6-1976 in consideration of Rs. 78 lakhs. Out of the sale consideration, the vendors had to pay the un-earned increase to Land & Development Office and were also to pay registration charges. They, accordingly, received net consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs. The balance of Rs. 18 lakhs was retained by Ansal & Sehgal Property Pvt. Ltd. On taking possession of the property, M/s Ansal & Sehgal (P.) Ltd converted the Sen Nursing Home into commercial flat after spending substantial amount...
Allied Chemicals and Pharma (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC426
The appellant is licensed by the Drugs Controller & Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur for the manufacture of Drugs & Medicinal items. The appellant imported a consignment of 2.000 M/T of 'Sodium Laurel Sulphate' and cleared the same under Bill of Entry dated 7-2-1985. The consignment was assessed under Tariff Item 29.01/45 (1) of CTA read with Item No. 15AA of CET for CD and SED (C.V.D.) purposes. The appellant claimed that the consignment should have been assessed under Tariff Item No. 29.01/45(13) and should have been given benefit of concession under provisions of Notification No. 33/83 Cus dated 1-3-1983. So, it claimed refund of the amount of duty charged in excess. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that as per Condensed Chemical Dictionary by G.G. Hawley, Sodium Laurel Sulphate is used as a wetting agent in textiles, detergent, toothpaste, etc. and also because the goods imported were not of Pharmacopoeial grade and so the adjudicating ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »