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.
Formica India Division Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC435Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals involve a common issue and hence the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants manufacture plastic laminated sheets falling under Item 15A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They use chemicals, namely, Phenol and Formaldehyde etc., in the manufacture of the laminated sheets. These chemicals used as inputs were duty-paid under Tariff Item 68. The appellants availed of set-off of the duty paid on these chemicals against the Central Excise duty payable on plastic laminated sheets. Shri V. Shreedharan, learned advocate has argued that from these chemicals, resin is manufactured. The said resin is consumed captively by them for manufacturing "treated paper" and "treated fabrics". The entire production of treated paper and treated fabrics is used captively for the manufacture of plastic laminated sheets which are the final finished products of the appellants. The base paper and fabrics are purchased by them fr...
Arun Nirula and ors. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT466
B.N. Kirpal, J.'19A. Mini mum standards uf medical education.- (1) The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post-graduate medical qualifications) by Universities or medical institutions in India. (2) Copies of the draft regulations and of a!l subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to all State Governments and the Council shall, before submitting the regulations or amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of copies aforesaid. (3) The Committee shall from time to time report to the Council on the efficacy or the regulations and may recommend to the Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit.' '20. Post-graduate Medical Education Committee for assisting Council in matters relating to post-graduate medical education....
Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT21
S.B. Wad, J.(1) In view of the importance of cement as a basic building commodity, it has been subjected to various regulations with a view to increase production and to attain self-sufficiency. On 3.5. 79 the Government of India. Ministry of Industry passed an order fixing retention prices. It laid down inter-alia that new cement undertakings and undertakings with substantial expansions would receive a retention price @ Rs. 296.00 per tonne. By notification dated 1.3.87 (No. 36-CE) the Government gave excise duty relief of Rs. 50.00 per M.T. to cement manufactured in a factory which commenced production after 1.4.86. There was a condition imposed for getting the benefit of the said relief, viz. that cement of clinker should be produced in the same factory. Subsequently, on 29.4.87 another notification (No. 124/87-CE) was issued by the Ministry of Industry giving excise duty relief of Rs. 20 f- per M.T. to cement manufactured in a factory which commenced production between 1.1.82 and 3...
Siianti Swaroop Singhal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT337
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The challenge in this writ petition to the cancellation of allotment of Shop/Stall No. S-39 in Phase I, Rewari Line, Delhi. (3) The case of the petitioner is that in 1963 the Delhi Administration had acquired 7 Big has and 8 his was of land belonging to Shri L.C, Singhal, the father of the petitioner. Shri L.C. Singhal expired in 1976 and the petitioner is stated to be the only heir in view of a Will which had been executed by his father in his favor. Under the scheme of the large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi alternative property was to be allotted with a view to rehabilitate the erstwhile owners. The petitioner had made an application for such alternative allotment and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 2000.00 . In the draw of lots held on 24th June. 1988 the petitioner was allotted a Shop/Stall bearing No. S-39 in phase I, Rewari Line, Delhi and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,13,695. The petitioner was also r...
K.S. Bawa Vs. Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1068; 1990RLR150
P.K. Bhari, J.(1) This appeal has been brought under Section 23EE of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Appellate Board made under Section 23 E of the Act by which the Appellate Board had reduced the penalty from Rs. 42,900 to. Rs. 42,100. Under Section 23D of the Act. the Director of Enforcement after giving show cause notices to the appellant and after holding inquiry in the prescribed manner had imposed the penalties on the appellant as the appellant had stated to have violated the provisions of Section 5(1)(a) and fur and Section 12 of the Act. Section 5(1)(a) and (aa) of the Act lays flown that save as otherwise provided in accordance with any general or special exemption, no person shall make any payment to or for the credit of any person resident outside India and receive otherwise than through an authorised dealer any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India. (2) The case of the Dep...
i.A.E.C. Bokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT388TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were undertaking manufacture of boilers and fabrication of steel works at site. They opted for assessment on the basis of invoice value under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The Department initiated proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Rules framed thereunder on the ground that they suppressed the contents of the contracts entered into by them in respect of three items of work as mentioned below and they did not pay the appropriate Central Excise duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and thereby made a short payment of Rs. 44,232.69. The details regarding the three items of work and the view taken by the lower authorities are stated below:- This work was executed by the appellants on behalf of Thirumalai Chemicals Limited, Sipcot, Ranipet. There was a contract dated 16-12-1976 for this work and the amount of contract was Rs. 57,253.82. The appellants raised an invoice for Rs. 57,253.8...
Mahavir Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)(33)LC764Tri(Delhi)
2. At the first the preliminary point that the proceedings before the Collector were without jurisdiction and that the two Show Cause Notices issued to the appellants were null and void was raised.3. This aspect of the matter was disposed of by the Bench by Misc.order No. 8/89-B-1, dated 24.1.1989. By this order the Beach dismissed the preliminary legal objections.4. Then the case was heard on merits. During the course of hearing on the merits the learned Counsel staled that: 5. The appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Stove-Burner Parts (hereinafter referred to as 'SB Parts' for the sake of brevity) on job work basis solely for manufacture of Stoves, in their factory at Goregaon, Bombay-63. The said SB Parts had always been classified under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68. The appellants say that they receive orders from the manufacturers of Stove burners specifying the SB Parts required by them solely for use in the manufacture of Stoves. The appellants also receiv...
income-tax Officer Vs. Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD44(Delhi)
ORDERPer Bakhshi - This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT (A) - VII, New Delhi, on the following grounds :-'1. The CIT (A) was not correct in law and on facts in holding that tax paid on self-assessment amounts to payment of tax in pursuance of an order of assessment and thereby allowing interest u/s 244(1A) in respect of payment u/s 140A of the I. T. Act.2. The CIT (A) was not correct in law and on facts in directing the ITO to allow such interest by means of an order which was passed u/s 154 of the I. T. Act.'2. The assessed company paid advance tax of Rs. 3,41,76,687 and a sum of Rs. 4,64,436 was deducted at source. The assessed also paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,42,642 on self-assessment on various dates. On completion of assessment, the company further paid a sum of Rs. 71,64,892. The company pursued the assessment in appeal and on the basis of the appellate order of ITAT, a refund of Rs. 73,22,050 was granted to the assessed which included interest u/s...
Borax Morarji Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC443Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for consideration in this appeal is the entitlement of the appellants to refund of customs duty of Rs. 27,465.39 on import of Crude Calcium Borate (Colemanite).2. We have heard Shri A. N. Haskar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri S. Krishnamurthy, learned SDR on behalf of the respondent.3. The appellants imported 2,350 Metric Tonnes of Crude Calcium Borate (Colemanite). The goods were provisionally assessed on the basis of a local invoice with FOB US $ 166850.00 after loading the value 5% provisionally. At the time of final assessment, some amount of duty (5% loading) was refunded. Further on submission of final invoice dated 8-2-1977 where the F.O.B. value was arrived at US $ 161351.00 (at the rate of US $ 68.66 per M.T.) for import of 2350 M.T., a further amount of Rs. 22,664.70 was refunded.4. However, the importers had filed a refund claim for Rs. 50,130.09 on the basis that the value of the goods should have been worked out on net dry weight of 2252.945 M.T...
Asia Foundations and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC296Tri(Delhi)
1. The applicants have filed an appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the CCE, Guntur. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 20-12-1989. Simultaneously, a stay application duly supported with an affidavit shown before the Notary was also presented for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty amount. The applicants have made a prayer to dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1,14,28,688/- and also made prayer for setting aside the impugned order. Shri R.K. Habbu, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the stay application. Shri Habbu has pleaded that the duty involved is Rs. 1,14,28,688/- and the period involved is January 1987 to 5-11-1988 and the show cause notice is dated 5-1-1989 which appears on page 61 of the Paper Book. Sh. Habbu has pleaded that the applicants are a job work contractor for the Ministry of Defence. The contract work included various items of civil electrical and mech...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »