Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 2 of about 110 results (0.024 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Photo Films
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC104
1. The Collector of Customs, Madras has preferred these appeals against a common order dated 13-12-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras by which he had held that cinematograph film, (unexposed), in jumbo rolls is correctly classifiable for additional duty of customs (CVD) under Item 37-I of CET (prior to 1-3-1986) and under Heading 3704 of CET Act, 1985 after that date. He, thereby, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section, Custom House, Madras dated 16-9-1987 by which she had rejected the 72 refund claims of the respondents herein, M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. in which they had sought re-assessment of the goods under Heading 3704 CET. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents, herein, imported goods described as cinematograph film (unexposed) colour positive in 'Jumbo forms' with a specification of an effective width of 112 CMS. This was assessed to CVD by the Custom House under Item 68 CET as 'all other goods...
Tag this Judgment!Sahuwala Cylinders Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC48
1. The appellants are manufacturers of "LPG Cylinders". The issue in dispute is the availment of the exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 01-03-1986, for their Unit, as the SSI Certificate was issued to them on 12-09-1986, and the Department has denied the exemption earlier to that date.2. The appellants contend that they were registered with the Department of Industries as a medium scale unit by virtue of the fact that the capital investment on plant and machinery was more than Rs. 20 lakhs.This limit was raised to Rs. 35 lakhs by the Notification issued on 18-3-1985. The appellants applied for a SSI Certificate on 01-03-1986 for availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 01-03-1986, and the Department of Industries issued the certificate dated 12-09-1986 with an endorsement that the Unit has obtained SSI status from 01-03-1986 by opting to come under SSI from that date by surrendering the DGTD Certificate to the DGTD, New Delhi.3. The Assistant Collector of Cent...
Tag this Judgment!Sealtite Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC274
1. As the issue is common in all the appeals, the matters are all clubbed together for common disposal as per law. The issue involved in these appeals is with regard to classification of product "can/drum lining compound". The Revenue has classified this product under tariff heading 4005.00 but has denied the benefit of the Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-1986 and has directed the appellants in the case of Sealtite Industries to clear the goods by paying CED in terms of Notification No. 377/86, dated 29-7-1986 and also confirmed a demand of Rs.1,25,692.58. The Collector (Appeals), Bombay has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector in Order-in-Original No. FI/77/87 by his impugned order in Appeal No.PPM-421/B-I-231/88, dated 19-8-1988.2. In Appeal No. E/984/89-C, the Revenue has been aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay by which he has upheld the assessee's contention that the product sealant is used for the purpose of lining/seali...
Tag this Judgment!Rita Rastogi Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT111
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the cancellation of the allotment of flat No. 2223, Category Iii, Sector C, Pocket, Ii Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.(2) Briefly stated, the facts are, that on 13th August, 1982 the petitioner had got herself registered for a Category 11 flat under the Fifth Self-Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982. The petitioner deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 10,000.00 . Thereafter on 8th February, 1984 she made an application to the respondent to the effect that she would prefer allotment under Category Iii instead of Category II. On 16th July, 1984 the request of the petitioner for the change from Category Ii to Category Iii was accepted and on a draw of lot conducted on 15th June, 1984 the petitioner was allocated a flat. According to the petitioner, and this is borne out from the record, the petitioner paid the Installments asked for and also paid a further sum of Rs. 5000.00 being the differential in the initial deposit between...
Tag this Judgment!Gomti Devi Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT147; I(1991)DMC251
M.L. Varma, J.(1) This case is listed for final disposal. The records of the Trial Court are here. 'I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. (2) The argument of Ms. Kum Kum Jain, Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that the Ld. trial court has exercised the jurisdiction with material irregularity in so-far as it has not given due weightage to the document which is annexed at page 8 of the Revision Petition. I have verified from the records of the trial court that this document was before the trial court. This document is a certificate dated 21.9.87, from the Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi. A perusal of this document shows that the petitioner has not been attending that office since 16.5.1986' This ..clearly establishes that if the petitioner had seized to be in the job in the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi, then there would have been no question of this document saying that he had not been attending the office. (3) The case put...
Tag this Judgment!Soni Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC451
1. The issue for decision in this case is whether correcting fluid and diluter packed in separate bottles and then cleared as one set in a common container should be classified under Tariff Heading 3823.00 in respect of correcting fluid and 38.14 in respect of the diluter for the purpose of Central Excise duty and whether value of correcting fluid only should form the basis of assessable value of the correcting fluid and not the total value of the correcting fluid and thinner. (a) The appellants manufacture correcting fluid falling under Tariff Heading 3823.00. They also purchase diluter in bulk falling under Tariff Heading 3814.00. They repack diluter into small glass bottles and seal them. They clear correcting fluid and diluter separately. In respect of correcting fluid they pay Central Excise duty which is at 15% ad valorem. They do not pay duty on diluter packed in small glass bottles as they avail of the benefit of full exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Patco Chemical Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC516Tri(Delhi)
1. The main appeal No. E/2447/86-C was filed on 29th August, 1986 and the impugned order was communicated to the Appellants on 3-6-1986. The main appeal was, therefore, filed within the statutory time limit of three months. Supplementary Appeal No. E/126/87-C was filed on 21-1-1987. As it was not filed within the time-limit of three months, the present COD application was filed by the Revenue praying for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary Appeal. In similar cases, where the main appeals were filed within the statutory time-limit, but the supplementary appeals were filed after expiry of the three months' statutory time-limit, this Tribunal has been condoning the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Following the consistent view taken in such matters, we condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeal in this case. Thereafter, we heard both the appeals together.2. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-origin...
Tag this Judgment!R.D. Ram Nath and Co. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD355(Delhi)
2. The assessee is an HUF. They have a business in export of brasswares. The asscssee's accounts were audited in the normal course and the returns were filed on the basis of the audited accounts. Claims were made for deduction under Sections 80H and 80-I. However, the assessee had not filed the audited report in the prescribed Forms 10C and 10CCB. But the ITO had allowed the asscssee's claim.3. The CIT was of the opinion that the order of the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. According to him, the prescribed certificate is a mandatory requirement and failure to file them was a fatal defect. So the deduction was wrongly allowed. He directed the income-tax authority to withdraw the relief. It may be mentioned that, in the course of hearing under Section 263, the assessee had obtained from the auditor the certificate in the proper form as required by the Rules. But the CIT had not admitted the same.4. Shri K.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Fabrics Vs. Khanna Sales Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991RLR55
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) [ED facts: Pff. filed summary suit of recovery of more then Rs. 13 lakh for goods supplied and hundies issued against bids bills. The Deft. applied for permission to defend on the plea that hundies were without consideration and were given to accommodate pff. That Deft. is a wholesaler and never bought goods from pff. and latter has sued him fraudulently.] After detailing above, judgment is :(2) Learned Counsel for Deft. has cited two Supreme Court cases to show in what circumstances conditional or un-conditional leave can be granted by the Court. It will be quite instructive first to understand the principles laid down by these authorities. In Santosh Kumar vs . Bhai Moot Singh : [1958]1SCR1211 , their Lordship ruled. 'ALL that we need say about them is that if the Court is of opinion that the defense is not bona fide, then it can impose conditions and is not tied down to refusing leave to defend......But it cannot reach the conclusion that the defense is not bona fi...
Tag this Judgment!Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Del)136; [1991]188ITR623(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Rule D.B.2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated July 20, 1989, and January 22, 1990, passed by the appropriate authority purportedly under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').3. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondents Nos. 3 to 10 had purchased by a registered sale deed the rear portion of 3, Prithviraj Road, abutting on Amrita Shergill Marg measuring about 5,000 sq. yards. The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, passed eight separate orders holding that there was a total excess vacant land of 680.26 sq. metres in the said property owned by respondents Nos. 3 to 10.4. Vide agreement dated May 10, 1989, respondents Nos. 3 to 10 agreedto sell the aforesaid land to the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 4,15,00,000(rupees four crores fifteen lakhs) In accordance with the provisions of Section 269UC, the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 10 jointly filed a...
Tag this Judgment!