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.
Top-o-plast Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC109Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard both these appeals together as the issues involved are common and they are related matters insofar as one is regarding classification and the other is regarding demand of Central Excise Duty based upon that classification. So we dispose them of by this common order.2. As stated in the Appeal Memorandums the facts may be summarised as under :- 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of injection moulded articles produced out of plastic materials namely, cloth washing brushes, pharmaceutical packing boxes, watch plastic boxes and other industrial components as well as battery tops etc. Battery tops are used as component part in the manufacture of dry battery cell. In this appeal the dispute is regarding classification of this product only. The appellant's firm was registered as a Small Scale Unit and commenced production of this product in and around 1980-81. At that time it was covered under Tariff Item 15A(2) but were exempted from whole of the duty of excise by virtue of ...
Dhanjit Vadra Vs. Smt. Beena Vadra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi146; 1990(18)DRJ199; 1990RLR167
1. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of C.R. 1400/89 and FAO 264/89 filed by the husband Dhanjit praying for modification of an order dated 5th of Sept., 1989 and for setting aside an order made by Ms. Kanwal Inder, Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 6th of Nov., 1989, because both the impugned orders arise out of one petition filed by the husband under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the wife Beena for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.2. The parties were married according to Hindu rites on 12th of March 1982. A female child Shaista was born from the wedlock on 4th of July 1983. Differences arose between the parties. They started living separately from each other from 5th of June 1984. They have not been able to live together since then. The petition under S. 13 of the Act was filed by the husband on 11th of February, 1985.3. During the proceedings, efforts were made, before framing ...
V.P. Mehta Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi169; 1990RLR195
ORDERB. N. Kirpal, J.1. Rule D. B.2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated 6th October, 1988 whereby the Telephone No. 532799 is threatened to be disconnected.3. The said telephone is in the name of the petitioner who is the subscriber. Previously this telephone was installed at Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi since about 1970. In the year 1986 it has been shifted to the present premises being A-43/2, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi. According to the petitioner he has a small cabin in the said premises and he has allowed M/s. Khanna Brothers to use the said telephone and an extension has also been provided by the petitioner to M/ s. Khanna Brothers.4. By the impugned notice which was issued to M/s. Khanna Brothers it is stated that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 51,339 in respect of Telephone No. 5415110 which was in the name of M/ s. Khanna Brothers and as this outstanding amount has not been paid, the Telephone No. 532799 will be disconnected.5. We hav...
Kailash Nath and Associate Vs. Ram Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT498; 1990(19)DRJ19
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff in a suit for mandatory injunction.(2) The brief facts are as follows. The defendants who claim to be the owners of plot No. J-1/164 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi approached the plaintiff for development of the said plot under a Group Housing Scheme. The terms and conditions were incorporated in a letter dated 8-3-1979 written by the plaintiff to the defendants. This letter was signed by all the defendants in token of their acceptance of the said terms. As per this agreement, defendants I to 3 and defendants 4 to 7 were to be allotted 36% of the total built up area on the said plot of land as consideration of the value of the free-hold land i.e. the disputed property. The remaining 64% was to be retained by the plaintiff and all the losses and gains there from were to be borne by the plaintiff. Certain conditions were a...
Wings Wear (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD41(Delhi)
ORDER1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, New Delhi noticed that the assessed had entered into the following four contracts exceeding Rs. 50,000 for stitching for Maruti Udyog Ltd. for which the particulars relating to the contract in the prescribed Form No. 52 had not been furnished within one month of the making of those contract :-Date of Contract Amount of Contract3-10-1983 Rs. 62,500 15-11-1983 Rs. 56,250 3-12-1983 Rs. 65,625 4-11-1984 Rs. 50,000The learned Commissioner thereforee, issued a notice under section 285A (2) to the assessed asking it to show cause why fine as envisaged in section 285A (2) be not imposed on it. After considering the reply dated 11-5-1987 of the assessed the learned Commissioner took the view that the assessed had committed the default. The particulars were filed by the assessed in Form No. 52 on 14-5-1987. He levied a fine of Rs. 5,000 on the assessed under the aforesaid provision.2. On behalf of the assessed the contentions raised in the reply ...
Mahesh Kumar Chauhan @ Banti Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT628
Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction for immediate release of the petitioner and for quashing the order of detention dated July 13, 1989, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Cofeposa Act'). (2) The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition is that the petitioner had made a representation dated August 18, 1989, in which inter alia, he had prayed for supply of copy of the retraction made by a co-detenu dated June 21, 1989, which he had sent through the Superintendent Central Jail to Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and a memo of rejection of the representation dated September 19, 1989, was received in w...
K.L.N. Engineering Products Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC99Tri(Delhi)
1. In the E/Misc./402/89-B1 - Miscellaneous Application for producing additional evidence was filed.To prove that the Central Excise Officers periodically visited the factory and physically checked the stocks of the finished goods lying there.To prove surprise visits of the Central Excise Officers to check the factory and the stocks lying there and further that no discrep-ancy was ever found in the stocks.Letter dated 6-8-1982 ofM/s. Laxmi Enterprises addressed to the Super-intendent of Central Excise.To prove the shifting of the fac-tory was duly intimated to the Department To prove bona fides and the quan-tum of the clearances made by 'M/s.Laxmi Enterprises.To prove that the consignments seized at the premises M/s. Arya Central Transport of India Pvt. Ltd,, belonged to M/s. Laxmi En-terprises and was delivered by them to the transport company along with "KLN" slips.To prove that the stock was veri-fied physically by the departmen-tal officers and found in order and these were not ly...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Punj Star Standard Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC445Tri(Delhi)
1. Review Show Cause Notice dated 15.1.1982 issued by the Central Government of India under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to review the Order No. 336-B of 1981 dated 9.7.1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, has been statutorily transferred to this Tribunal as an appeal under Section 35-P(2) of the Act.2. The facts of the case are neatly set out in the paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Review Show Cause Notice and hence the same are reproduced below: 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case ate that the party who are manufacturers of T.V. sets, had been collecting handling/incidental charges and packing and forwarding charges from their customers at the time of sale of their T.V. sets by issuing separate bills or through debit notes. The party had not declared in their price list the fact that they had been collecting such charges on the sale of the T.V. sets. The Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh after due process of adjudication held that the...
Perfect Spray - Pac (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT433TriDel
1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs relating to an importation of "Aerosol Valves" under OGL. The Additional Collector has confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with permission to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/- against which the appellants have preferred this appeal to the Tribunal.2. In this appeal, the appellants have raised the plea that they have imported the components of "Aerosol Valves" and they are covered by Appendix 6 item-I of the Import Policy -1985-88 AM - "Raw-materials, components and consumables (non-iron and steel items) other than those included in the Appendices 2,3 Part-A, 5 and 8". They also contended that Entry No. 422 as appearing in List-8 Part-I of Appendix-6 under Heavy Engineering and Allied Items, "Aerosol Valves, other than metered type" are permitted for actual users and hence it is a permissible item.3. Shri A.K. Jain, the Ld. Advocate has in his oral submissions stated that the i...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: 1990(27)ECC109; 1990(49)ELT30(Del)
ORDERCharanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner company is carrying on the business of manufacturing tyres and tubes for motor vehicles. The case of the petitioner is that till the end of the year 1974, there was an acute shortage of tyres of tyres in India. New investment for setting up a tyre plant was difficult to get as hung investment of about Rs. 30 crores was required for an installed capacity of about 5 lakhs tyres per annum. By the time the petitioner's plant was completed and ready for production in October, 1974, the total investment of the company went up to even over Rs. 30 crores. It averred that during the time the petitioner was setting up its project, it explained the difficulties of new units to the Government of India for considering fiscal measures to be adopted for the tyre industry to enable new units to achieve a reasonable return on their investments and to be able to compete with the existing old established tyre companies. 2. It is claimed that the Government of In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »