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.
Wang Shyu Der Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT100TriDel
1. These appeals are against the orders of the Collector of Customs, Cochin. Since these appeals arise out the common impugned order of the learned lower authority, these are taken up for disposal together.2. After hearing both the sides the following order was passed in the open court: 3. Proceedings were initiated for the reason that the quantity of fish declared in the Import Manifests filed by the appellants as also that declared in the Shipping Bills was not correct and the learned lower authority confiscated the 2 trawlers in which the fish was contained under Section 113(d), 113(h) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in lieu of confiscation of the fish a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed and a personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on M/s. High Sea Foods Ltd., the charterers of the trawlers and the exporters under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each was imposed on the captains of the two trawlers under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1...
Fenner (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC164Tri(Delhi)
1. The question to be decided in all these appeals relates to valuation. The basic facts are that M/s. Fenner (I) Ltd. (Fenner for short) manufacture, among other things V-belts. They sold some of the V-belts at the factory gate paying duty on the basis of approved price list and the remaining belts they sold through their depots. At these depots they sell not only V-belts manufactured by them in their Madurai Factory but also V-belt's manufactured by BMF Beltings Ltd., Hyderabad (BMF for short) a sister concern of theirs. By two separate orders impugned before us the Department wanted to revise the assessable value of the V-belts sold to the sales depots (having been manufactured by the two Units). Inter-alia, some penalties were also imposed and differential duties demanded. Hence these appeals before us.2. We heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri L. P. Asthana, Jt. CDR for the respondent Collector.3. The facts in the present matter are that ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Assam Valley Plywood (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT430TriDel
1. This appeal, filed by Revenue, seeks to review the order dated 21-7-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector, allowing a lower value for the purpose of assessment of plywood of 15 mm non-decorative Block Boards, manufactured by the appellants and sold through their depots.2. Smt. Baliga, the ld. SDR submitted that the impugned order is wrong in having allowed the appeal inasmuch as there was no basis for the downward revision of the value arrived by the Asstt. Collr.3. Shri Mukhopadhyay, the ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that out of the three kinds of Block Boards manufactured by the appellants (15 mm, 18 mm & 25 mm), there were factory-gate prices in respect of 18 mm & 25 mm which were approved by the Asstt. Collr. He submitted that in respect of 15 mm Block Board, the sales are through the depots and the price was approved by the Asstt. Collr. without any abatement. The ld. Advocate further submitted that the value of 18 mm Block Board was fixed at Rs. 32.77/- ...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajinder Mittal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1187; 42(1990)DLT592; 1991(20)DRJ65; 1990RLR539
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th of October 1980 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which he dismissed a complaint under Section 29(2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act and acquitted the respondent who was accused of the commission of the crime. (2) The brief facts are that on 9th of October 1978 the field staff of the Delhi Development Authority found the respondent has permitted the building M-291, Greater Kailash-11, New Delhi, to be used for non-conforming purposes by running a unit of ready-made garments. The aforesaid building falls in zone No. F-9 and according to the scheme of Master Plan it could only be used for residential purposes as envisaged by Section of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. (3) Before we proceed further, we may take notice of the stand that the respondent bad taken before the trial court during his statement under Section 313 Cr PC. The crux of the stand taken by the respondent is that th...
Ram Krishan Singhal Vs. Executive Engineer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR154(Delhi); ILR1991Delhi275; 1991RLR47
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking direction to respondent No. 1 for filing the arbitration agreement and for appointing an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties in relation to agreement No. 38jEElDAD11987-88 dated January 18, 1988.(2) Respondent No. I on behalf of respondent No. 2 bad invited the tenders for construction of double lane link road from main Delhi, Loni Road to C.R.P.F. Campus at Beharipur (Wazirabad), Delhi]. The tender of petitioner was accepted for and on. behalf of respondent No. 2 and the contract was awarded to the petitioner vide agreement dated January 18, 1988. The said agreement is governed by general conditions of contract and the same provide the arbitration clause 25.(3) The case of the petitioner is that due to certain illegal and irregular action of the respondents and their officers, the petitioner had to suffer a great deal of loss and thus, disputes have arisen out o...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bright Brothers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC270Tri(Delhi)
1. As subject matter of both these appeals is the same, we have heard them together and we dispose them of together by this common order.2. Facts, stated briefly, are - assessee, M/s. Bright Brothers Ltd., manufacture articles of plastic (hereinafter referred to the 'said goods'). Prior to 1-3-1982, the said goods were classified under T.I.15A(2) and during the period from 1-3-1982 to 10-5-1982, the said goods continued to be classifiable under T.I. 15A(2), but due to some mistake, the Excise Department asked the assessee to classify the goods under T.1.68 from 1-3-1982 and to pay excise duty accordingly. As a consequence thereof, the assessee did file the classification list in respect of the said goods under T.I. 68 and paid basic excise duty @ 8% ad valorem applicable under T.1.68 during the period 1-3-1982 to 22-4-1982. From 22-4-1982, the said goods were totally exempt from duty by virtue of Notification No. 149/82 dated 22-4-1982 which exemption was continued even after the pass...
Nath Bros. Exim International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT42TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of Amidotrizoic Acid USP which was cleared on payment of duty on 2-2-1985 on being assessed to duty under Heading 29.01/45(10) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as Acids not elsewhere specified. Subsequently, the appellants filed a refund claim on 4-4-1985 for Rs... inter alia, on the ground that Amidotrizoic Acid USP is a drug as confirmed by the Assistant Drug Controller by his endorsement on the reverse of the Bill of Entry...countervailing excise duty purpose ...had given the benefit of excise exemption...the goods as drug. They claimed lower duty on the classification under Heading 29.01/45(13) as Pharmaceutical chemicals.The claim, however, was rejected by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Refunds), Bombay C. H. by his order dated 29-9-1986 saying that no evidence has been produced that the material has sole or predominant use as drug only for the purposes of classification under Heading 29.01/45(13) CTA. The appeal against the Assist...
Daljit Exports (ind.) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD305(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a Private Ltd. Company and the main issue is the carry forward of the losses of the prior assessment years. For the year 1983-84, the assessee had filed a return declaring a loss of Rs, 61,933. The ITO found that there was no business activity at all of the assessee. No sale had taken place during this year. The opening stock, which was brought forward, had been carried forward to the next year.No purchases had been effected. The only receipt was the cash incentive received from the Government in respect of the export entitlement of the prior assessment years. The assessee had claimed expenditure shown in the Profit and Loss Account exceeding Rs. 75,000. In the absence of any business, the ITO was of the opinion that the assessee was not eligible for deduction of any expenditure. However, since there was receipt of cash incentives and the assessee must have incurred some expenditure in order to receive this amount, be allowed a deduction of 10% of the cash receipts....
Ram Papers Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC677Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of waste paper (Hard White Shavings) for which a Bill of Entry was filed on 20-3-1990 claiming classification under sub-heading 4767.90 CTA 1975 and benefit of exemption Notification 219/84. On examination of the goods, the department found that there was 20% approximately serviceable paper comprising of different shapes & sizes and of different quality and thickness compressed and bundled in bales alongwith shavings of various sizes and the sizes were found to vary from 3 ft. x 2 ft. upward. The department hence took the view that 20% cargo was misdeclared and the mis-declared quantity was held to be printing and writing paper on which a higher rate of duty was applicable than that on waste paper. As a corollary to this, the department also opined that the import of only waste paper was permissible under Open General Licence (OGL) whereas the import of printing & writing paper being a restricted item under the relevant import po...
Nehru Institute of Pharmacy and Technology Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT544
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The petitioner claims to be an institution which is supposed to be imparting education to students inpharmacy. The prayer in the writ petition is that though the Pharmacy Council of India (respondent No. 3) has granted recognition to the petitioner nevertheless the Board of Technical Education., Delhi Administration (respondent No. 2) is not conducting the examination of the first year student's which had .been .admitted by the petitioner. (3) In the writ petition it is stated that vide notification of the 20th July, 1988 respondent No. 3 had, under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, approved the course of study of the petitioner up to the year ending 1990. Respondent No. 2 is not willing to conduct the examination of the students of the petitioner who had been admitted in the academic year 1989-90. The submission is that this action of respondent No. 2 is contrary to law, (4) In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has first relie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »