Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 6 of about 110 results (0.023 seconds)Escorts Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT207; 1991(31)ECC232; 1991(52)ELT27(Del)
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to deposit of the amount of impugned demand as a condition precedent to hearing of appeals before the Collector (Appeals). The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that during the relevant period of 31-7-87 to 6-1-88, i.e. the period covered by the impugned order of the Assistant Collector, dated 28-11-89, motorcycle were cleared ex-factory for sales in the wholesale price which was available with the respondent within the meaning of sec. 4(l)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Apart from the ex- factory sales on wholesale price, the petitioners also sold motor- cycles in retail through their depot in Ghaziabad and in some cases from the factory to various customers all over India. The petitioners' case is that once the ex-factory wholesale price is available. the same would be applicable to all clearances made from the factory and, thereforee, it is not...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC270Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Customs (Madras) has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.The said appeal was received in the Registry on the 3rd day of December, 1984 and in Column No. 3, the date of communication has been mentioned as 4th August, 1984. An appelication for Condonation of Delay was also filed along with the appeal Memo. Shri M.K. Sohal, Ld. J.D.R.who has appeared on behalf of the appellant pleaded that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period as the matter was under examination of the Revenue authorities and it took some time and as such the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. As soon as the appellant felt that the appeal has to be filed, the appeal was filed. He has pleaded for condonation of delay.2. Shri A,S. Sundar Rajan, Ld. Consultant who has appeared on behalf of the Respondent opposed the condonation of delay and pleaded that there was negligence on the part of the appellant a...
Tag this Judgment!Director, A.D.E., Govt. of India, Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC349Tri(Delhi)
1. The Director, Research & Development Organisation, A.D.E., Government of India, Ministry of Defence, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The said appeal was sent by registered A.D. post and was received in the Registry on the 7th day of November 1988. In Column No. 3 of the Memo of Appeal, the date of communication has been mentioned as 29.7.1988 and as such the appeal was received in the Registry after the expiry of limitation provided in terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit, sworn before a Notary Public. Shri CM. Jaitly, Sqn. Ldr. has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay and has pleaded that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late fili...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Anand Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC757Tri(Delhi)
1.1 Acting on information, the residential premises of the appellant were searched on 16-9-1987 after obtaining the necessary search authorisation. As a result of search, 46 cans of beer, 62 bottles of whisky and 590 video cassettes (recorded), all of foreign origin, were recovered. Since the wife of the appellant, who was present during the search, could not produce any evidence of the legal import or acquisition of the said goods, they were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. 1.2 Shri Mohan Anand, the appellant after his return from abroad, in his statement dated 29-9-1987 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, while admitting the recovery of the above goods from his premises collectively valued at Rs. 79,810/- (OF value Rs. 26,440/-) stated that he had procured these goods while he and his wife visited abroad in 95 trips since 1980. He and his wife had been bringing the said goods in the bona fide free baggage allowance for which no receipts were made by the Custom...
Tag this Judgment!Lifeline Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT98TriDel
1. The appellants have, inter alia, imported the goods described as (1) Red-O-Pack valued at CIF Rs. 17,416/- and (2) Red-on-Drain valued at CIF Rs. 62.123/- and filed bill of entry dated 11-10-J988. They claimed the clearance of these goods under OGL Appendix 6 Sl. No. 42 of the ITC Policy 1988-91 read with Para 44 of the said Appendix. They also claimed that the aforesaid goods were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 208/81 read with Notification 66/87.2. The department, on the other hand, felt that the aforesaid goods required a specific licence being covered under the term 'consumer goods' falling under Appendix 2-B S. No, 145 of ITC Policy 1988-91. The department also felt that the duty is leviable on the goods at the rate of 40% plus 45% plus 15% after classifying them under Tariff Heading 9018.90 and giving them the benefit of Notification 118/86.2A. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, relevant S. No. 42 of List II of Appendix 6 is reproduced below :...
Tag this Judgment!Kold Hold Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]192ITR62(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1980-81, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that additional tax under section 104 should be lived because the petitioner-company had not distributed the requisite dividend. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessed that the dividend was not distributed with a view to build up sufficient reserve for further development. It was noted by the Income-tax Officer that there was no evidence in this regard. An appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was dismissed. Before him, the assessed sought to place reliance upon the minutes book of the board of directors where, with regard to item No. 5 concerning the declaration of dividend, it had been written that the dividend was not being declared because money was required for future expansion. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that there were interpolations in the said minutes book and he...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Prakash Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi544
Arun B.Saharya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the nomination of respondent No. 3 as a member of the Press Council of India, constituted and established under the Press Council Act No. 37 of 1978. hereinafter referred to as the Act. (2) Petitioner No. 1 is a working journalist. He is a member of petitioner No. 2, the Delhi .Union of Journalists (for short DUJ), which is represented by its General Secretary Shri S. K. Pandey. Petitioner No. 3 is the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (for short IFWJ). It is represented by Shri Santosh Kuniar, who claims to be the convener to the Steering Committee of the said Federation. (3) The names of the persons nominated as members of the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Council) take effect horn the date on which the Central Government notifies the same. The Central Government has been arrayed in the name of the Union of India as respondent No. 1 R...
Tag this Judgment!U.L. Kalsi Vs. K.S. Bhattacharya
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT215
Suananda Bhandare, J.(1) ADMIT.(2) Since a very short point is involved in the petition, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the main petition itself.(3) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 1st February 1990. The petitioner filed a petition under section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the court of the Rent Controller. During the pendency of the said petition, before the Additional Rent Controller passed the order on the petition, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking amendment of the petition. (4) One of the amendments sought by the petitioner was that he wanted to specifically mention that the premises were let out to the respondent for residential purpose. The application was opposed by the respondent. The respondent subm...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Nath Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT15
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner was prosecuted for using premises .No. 17. North Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh. Delhi, for non-conforming use. He was running a tailoring shop and was found indulging in this activity on 25th November 1980 in the said premises, though the premises falls within the residential zone and could only be used for residential purpose and not for commercial purpose. The inspection was carried out by Shri V. M. Aggarwal, Zonal Engineer. (2) The controversy falls within a very narrow compass inasmuch as even though the petitioner had pleaded not guilty he confessed that he was running a tailoring shop in the garage of the building. The learned court of the Metropolitan Magistrate relying on the prosecution story and evidence found the petitioner guilty and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000.00 , in default simple imprisonment for three months but in appeal the learned Sessions Judge while upholding the finding of guilty reduced the fine to Rs. 400.00 in default to...
Tag this Judgment!Metrosyl, Jesidih Industrial Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC348
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants were, during the material period, engaged in the manufacture of "Met rosyl DM Silicone Fluid" which was claimed by them as classifiable under sub-heading No. 3910.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, ("The Schedule", for short) attracting Central Excise duty at 35% ad valorem in terms of Serial Number 15 of the Table annexed to Central Excise Notfn. No. 132/86 dt. 1-3-1986. The notification provided inter alia the said concessional rate of duty for silicones in primary form if they were manufactured out of Chlorosilanes on which the excise duty, or the additional duty of customs, leviable thereon, as the case may be, had already been paid. The appellants were manufacturing the product using imported Chlorosilanes on which additional duty of customs had been paid. The Asstt. Collector, however, denied the benefit of the concessional rate of 35% ad valorem on the ground that the appellants had availe...
Tag this Judgment!