Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 10 of about 110 results (0.026 seconds)Indian Cardboard Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(54)ELT221TriDel
1. In all these appeals, though facts may be slightly different, the issues to be decided are same. So, we have heard them together and dispose them of by this common order.2. Appellants are paper mills manufacturing different types of paper wherein they have to prepare some types of aqueous solution for the purpose of sizing the paper. Sizing is for the purpose of making the paper water repellant and rosin is a material which is used for giving this effect. But, as stated by the appellants and not disputed by the Department, rosin comes in the form of a lump and cannot be used as such, so emulsion has to be prepared by adding some other material and dissolving them in the water. Process, adopted for this purpose by all the appellants, is more or less the same. The process, as stated in the impugned order in para 8 in Appeal No. E/4015/89-C (M/s. Stad-fast Paper Mills, Appellant), is that the product, in question, is manufactured by reacting caustic soda lye in water and then heating ...
Tag this Judgment!Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT608TriDel
1. This appeal was originally filed before the Central Board of Excise & Customs against the Order-in-Original No.11/MP/1980 dated 10-6-1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, which has been statutorily transferred to this Tribunal for being disposed of as an appeal in terms of Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The issue in the present case is whether the product manufactured by the appellants was a Mosaic Tiles falling under Central'Excise Tariff Item 23D as claimed by the appellants or a Chinaware and Porcelain ware falling under Tariff Item 23B as held by the Department.3. The facts of the case, in brief, relating to this issue are that the appellants were served with a Show Cause Notice dated 6-10-1976 charging that they availed wrongful exemption under Notification No.208/73 dated 13-12-1973 and No. 38/75 dated 1-3-1975 in respect of the value of goods cleared on production which were chargeable to duty and classifiable as Chinaware ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Indian Scientific Glass
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC35
1. This is a case regarding additional duty on slivers and rovings described as synthetic waste and sought to be cleared as such.2. The learned DR drew attention to the brief facts of the case as mentioned in the statement of facts as also grounds of appeal and prayer urge thereunder.3. The learned Counsel for the respondents drew attention to the order of this Tribunal No. D-395/86, dated 30.6.1986 and stated that these cases are squarely covered by the aforesaid order and in the light thereof, the order of Collector (Appeals) is required to be upheld.4. In response to questions from the Bench, both the sides mentioned that the original Bills of Entry and the test reports have not been filed by either side and they are not in a position to show the same at this stage.5. The learned Counsel drew attention to the explanation to 18(iv) CET and stated that the ambit of this entry has been restricted by the explanation and it was their contention that in view of this position, they were c...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Steel Rolling Mills (P.) Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD383(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a limited company has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)dt. 29-9-1987 and the grievance of the assessee is on the confirmation of the rectification action under Section 154, taken by the assessing officer in the charging of interest under Section 215 of the Act, thereby raising a further demand of Rs. 15,949 as additional interest payable by the assessee.2. Sh. Pradeep Dinodia submitted that, the assessee company was assessed at a total income of Rs. 83,14,396 on which income, the total tax payable was determined at Rs. 53,58,474. The assessing officer while calculating interest under Section 215, took into consideration the tax paid under Section 140A of the Act at Rs. 16,49,677 on 29-7-1980 and levied the interest for the period 1-4-1980 to 30-6-1980 and again from 1-8-1980 to 30-6-1982, as the assessment stood concluded on 2-7-1982. The assessing officer subsequently invoked Section 154 of the Act because he felt that he had calculated the i...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Barmalt India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD269(Delhi)
1. The revenue has filed this appeal objecting to the order of the CIT(A) dt. 24-7-1987 and the objection of the revenue is on his decision that, the CIT(A) was in error in holding that, interest under Section 216 of the Act shall not be charged on the basis of the second and the third instalment, when the first estimate of the assessee itself was wrong.2. Shri Sandeep Tandon, the departmental representative submitted that, the assessee a limited company and an existing assessee, filed its estimate of current income at Rs. 5 lakhs, in form No. 29 on 15-9-1981, the date on which the first instalment of advance tax was due and had determined the tax payable at Rs. 3,07,500. One-third of this amount, i.e., Rs. 1,02,500 was paid on the due date. The assessee revised this estimate ofits current income on 15-12-1981 at Rs. 10 lakhs in form No.29 and paid the second instalment ofadvance tax at Rs. 2,56,250 on the due date. The assessee finally submitted a revised estimate of its current inco...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Misra Vs. Commander Officer, Air Force St. Rajokri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT170
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The petitioner, who is a serving officer in the Indian Air Force, was transferred from New Delhi to Bhuj in Gujarat on 28th March, 1988. Prior to his transfer, he had been allotted married accommodation at Rajokri Air Force Station, Delhi. The petitioner's family did not vacate the said premises till April, 1989 and the respondents are charging market rent from the petitioner with effect from 7th November, 1988. (2) The grievance of the petitioner is that at Bhuj married accommodation was not available to the petitioner and non-availability certificate was furnished and thereforee the petitioner had a right to retain the premises at Delhi and he could not be charged market rent. It is further averred that the petitioner was declared as an unauthorised occupant only vide letter dated 17th February, 1989 and thereforee he can charged market rent only with effect from that date. In support of his contention that he could retain the premises after transfer, reliance has...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991CriLJ645; 43(1991)DLT88
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) On an application us 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. in the event of his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Cbi Office, Cgo Complex, New Delhi, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. He was. however, directed to join the investigation as and when called upon by the 10 b (2) The respondent-OBI has filed the reply and has opposed the confirmation of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner on numerous grounds, namely : (1) The petitioner is involved in a case of murder which is an offence of serious nature. He is an influential person of the area and is capable of organising huge rallies with a view to prevent the concerned persona not to be witnesses in the case. One of the eyewitness has in fact been threatened or serious consequences in case he attempted to depose against the petitioner. The treatm...
Tag this Judgment!Nanak Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992CriLJ55; 1991RLR62
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Jenkins in his Communication in the Court- room =The Lawyer as an Educator (1984) L J. 377 writes that an advocate is a teacher of sorts, and instructs the Judge as to what the underlying facts and circumstances are, so that an informed choice can be made. I have waited and waited today for these teachers of sorts and as none has turned up, I am exercising the other option-the option to roll up my sleeves and to dig into the case.(2) The case needs no big canvas. The petitioner was convicted by a Metropolitan Magistrate u/S. 25 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a Kirpan in contravention of a Notification which was placed on the record. Aggrieved, he knocked at the doors of the Additional Sessions Judge, but his appeal failed. Hence this revision petition. (3) It is the Notification which holds the key for it was on its basis that the prosecution was launched. And, what does it prohibit It prohibits acquisition, possession and earring of 'spring-actuated kni...
Tag this Judgment!Swaran Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1991)ACC106; 1992ACJ427; 1991CriLJ1867; 42(1990)DLT588; 1991(20)DRJ53
V.B. Bensal, J.(1) Swaran Singh has filed this revision petition thereby challenging his conviction under Sections 279/338/104-A, I P.C. in F.I.R. No. 201 of 1985 Police Station, Ashok Vihar. The petitioner Was convicted by Shri Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide judgment dated 4th of February, 1984 and was sentenced to pay a fine to Rs. 500.00 or in default to undergo. (2) R.I. for one month under Section 279 I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default to undergo R.I. for two months under Section 338 I.P.C. and to R.I. For one year with a fine of RR. 1,000.00 or in default to undergo R 1. for two months for the offence under Section 304-A I, order dated 7th of February, 1989. Appeal filed by the petitioner wag dismissed by M/s Sharda Aggarwal, Additional sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 22nd of April, 1989. (3) The revision petition came up for hearing in this court when no one appeared for the petitioner while stated was represented by Shri G.S. . Vas...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Vs. Vijay Karan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(1)Crimes173; 43(1991)DLT275
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of detention dated 22nd of May 1990 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. (2) The deletion order was served on the petitioner on 22nd of May 1990 along with the grounds of detention and copies of six documents marked as Annexures I to VI. The detention order and the grounds were in English language whereas the copies of documents were in Urdu script. The detention order was approved by the State Government under Section 3(4) of the Act. Petitioner's representation dated 7th of June 1990 was rejected. On the basis of a report of the Advisory B...
Tag this Judgment!