Delhi Court October 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.
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Jagdish Chand and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD358(Delhi)
1. These appeals relate to a connected group of assessees and raise identical points regarding the grant of relief under Section 80C in respect of payment of Life Insurance Premium and purchase of National Savings Certificates. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. I have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee and have perused the material placed before me.2. I will first take up the case of M/s. Raj Kumar Dewan & Sons. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family and the relevant accounting period ended on 31-3-1985. The assessee purchased National Savings Certificates for Rs. 10,000 on 28-3-1985. According to the assessing officer they were purchased by procuring the amount on loan from Master Sanjiv. The assessee also paid Life Insurance Premium amounting to Rs. 17,915. According to the assessing officer this amount was procured by loans from Shri Raj Kumar & Sons and since the investments aforesaid we...
Madhusudan Timber Industries Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR252(Delhi); 43(1991)DLT335
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This application has been moved under Section 41 read with Schedule Ii of the Arbitration Act. praying that the Court should direct the stay of operation of The order of de-registration of the petitioner from made by the respondents on July 11, 1990. (2) This application has been moved in a petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The facts, in brief, are that in response to the invitation of tenders issued by the respondents. the petitioner had submitted its tender for supply of 2000 boxes C-33A each to Ordnance Factory, Khamaria and Ordnance Factory, Chanda. The tender of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents on January 18, 1989. According to the petitioner, it had supplied the entire store under the aforesaid supply orders after they were manufactured under strict inspection procedure and quality control measures adopted by the respondents, and no sub-standard plywood was used in the manufacture of the said supplies and the supplies were als...
Brij Mohan Sethi Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT599
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procure has been filed by Brij Mohan Sethi, the petitioner, praline that the order dated 19th October, 1989 for his detention be quashed. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to the Act) Shri Mahendra Prasad specially empowered officer passed the impugned order dated 19th October, 1989 for the detention of the petitioner, Shri Brij Mohan Sethi, so as to prevent him from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. (2) In this petition a number of grounds have been taken by the petitioner whereby challenging the order of his detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, has restricted his submission only on one point i.e. the delay in execution of the order...
Shalimar Chemical Industries Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC55Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Custom House, Bombay in order-in-appeal dated 18th April, 1990, the above captioned appellants had approached this Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the abovesaid order. In terms of that order, the learned Collector (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division IX, Bombay-II in order No. V-Adj. 29(3) 23/88/4276, dated 31-3-1989. In terms of that order, the learned Assistant Collector held that the appellants are not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 75/84, dated 1-3-1984 and confirmed the show cause-cum-demand notice issued on 30th March, 1988 by the Superintendent of Central Excise and ordered the appellants to pay Rs. 3,59,885.91 P.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants obtained a Central Excise L-6 Licence bearing No. R-III/3/May, 1985 Benzene and Toluene for the manufacture of Solvents, diluent or...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pops Foods Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC254Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore has filed a review application in Form No. E.A. 5 and the same was received in the Registry on the 27th day of July, 1983, being aggrieved from the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Notices of hearing were sent to the respondents from time to time. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the same on merits.2. Shri M.K. Sohal, learned JDR has appeared on behalf of the appellant. The matter had come up for hearing earlier on 31st July, 1990 and 17th August, 1990. And earlier also, on 31st July, 1990, the Bench had pointed out to the learned JDR that the review application filed by the Revenue is against the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras and, as such, an appeal should have been filed and not a review application and appeal should have been filed in terms of provision of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and not ...
Jagdish Sahai Mathur and Another Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1069
Jaspal Singh, J.1. As the reference raises a question pristinely legal, we need not lose much breath on the facts. A brief resume would suffice. 2. One Mohd. Shafi was challaned under sections 420, 468 and 471 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after taking cognizance under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, supplied copies of statements and documents and on hearing arguments on charge first passed an order summoning Jagdish Sahai Mathur and Prem Narain Goel as co-accused under section 190(1)(c) of the Code and thereafter framed charges not only against Mohd. Shafi but also against Jagdish Sahai Mathur and Prem Narain. Needless to say, the newly added co-accused found the orders unpalatable. Consequently, they filed revision petition taking the plea that the order passed under Section 190 of the Code was bad as they could be summoned only under section 319 of the Code after the recording of evidence. Of course, they also took the ...
Nanak Builders Andinvestors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Alag
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1990
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi315; ILR1991Delhi303; 1991RLR87
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of a contract dated 16th October 1985 regarding sale of plot No. E-554, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi, measuring 275 Sq. Yards by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff and for delivery of possession thereof. (2) The case of the plaintiff is that on 16th October, 1985, the defendant agreed to sell plot of land measuring 275 So. Yds. bearing No. E-554 (Part), Greater Kailash Part-11, New Delhi to the plaintiff for a total consideration of rupees eleven lacs. A receipt for the sum of rupees one las which was paid in cash by the plaintiff to the defendant was executed on the same date. The said receipt itself contains the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. The case of the plaintiff is that the said document, though titled as a receipt, is in fact a contract which is signed by both the parties and the plaintiff seeks specific performance of the same. The plaintiff has further ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC681Tri(Delhi)
"Whether refund/rebate claim of the assessee received by the Inspector of Central Excise Range on a certain date is to be deemed to have been received by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, on the date in view of the express provision of Section 11B(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which stipulates that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of 6 months from the relevant date which is the date of payment of duty in the instant case. The Rebate claim was actually received by the Assistant Collector after the expiry of six months from the relevant date".2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, brief facts of the case as found by the Tribunal in its order No. A/96/90-NRB dated 6-3-1990 are set out below :- "From a resume of the facts as stated above it is clear that in the instant case the Sector Officer entertained the refund application, ...
Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC603Tri(Delhi)
1. The case was listed for hearing on merits on 11-4-1990. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. They, however, sent a telegram requesting that the case may be decided in their absence on the basis of their written submissions. Accordingly, we have gone through the records of the case and have heard Smt. Baliga.2. The question to be decided in this case is whether interest on Central Excise duty on the yarn used in the manufacture of cotton fabrics exported out of India under Bond is recoverable according to the provision of Rule 49A of the Central Excise Rules. The department has raised demand for interest. The Collector (Appeals), by the impugned order has restricted the demands for a period of six months.The order has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal. "49A. Collection of duty leviable on cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn alongwith the duty on cotton fabrics - (i) who manufactures cellulosic spun yarn falling under Item No. 18III(i) of the First Schedule to t...
Wimco Pen Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT628TriDel
1. When the appeals were called, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri Sejpal, submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is whether the Polyurethane foam of rigid type (i.e. rigid P.U. foam) which is insulating material manufactured by the appellants can be considered as excisable goods and chargeable to duty under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that this issue stanus already settled by two decisions of this Tribunal in Order No. 684/89-C in Eagle Flask (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune and Order No. 655/90-C in Milton Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II in which the Tribunal had held that the goods, in question, are not excisable. Shri Jayaraman, the Ld. S.D.R., does not dispute this submission of the Ld. Counsel but would reiterate the submissions made by the departmental representative before the Tribunal in both these cases. On perusal of the two orders of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has considered th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »