Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 7 of about 110 results (0.019 seconds)Prabhat Zarda Factory Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC522Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. The learned counsel stated, that having commenced production only on 22-10-1984, the appellants and the employees of the company were inexperienced in maintaining Excise records at the relevant time.3. They were being guided by the Excise Officers incharge, specially in regard to the format of Excise records to be maintained such as R.G.register etc.4. Throughout the material time, the dutiable product manufactured by the appellants was "branded" chewing tobacco (Quiwam), falling under Tariff Item 4-II(5) and with Notification No. 34/79-CE., dated 1-3-1979 (as amended) was applicable. The unit was under "physical control" i.e.subject to 100% checks. And removal of goods could take place only after physical check not only of the product, but also of the day to day records maintained for the purpose.5. Throughout the material time, the Excise authorities in-charge of the factory were aware that the records ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. Major K.K. Taneja
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi215
ORDERM. K. Chawla, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal by the Union of India is directed against the Judgment dt. 2-11-1987* of the learned single Judge, quashing the order of dismissal from service of Major K. K. Taneja, the respondent herein by the General Court Martial and confirmed by the Competent authority under the Army Act. 2. Along with this appeal, the appellants filed an application (CM 158/88) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condition of delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. The appellants also moved another application (CM 157 / 88) under or. XXXXI, Rule 27 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for permission to place on record the relevant Gazette notification/ warrant by way of additional evidence. 3. Before dealing with this appeal and the applications, it is relevant to keep in mind a few salient features of the respondents case as disclosed in his petition (CWP 1253/ 78). The respondent herein was appointed as a regular commissioned officer in the Indian Army ...
Tag this Judgment!J. K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]190ITR532(Delhi)
ORDER--Question not urged at the time of hearing the appeal does not amount to.buttal evidenceHELD:Raising a contention before the Tribunal means that the representative of the assessed or the Department actually argued that contention before the Tribunal. If a ground is taken in the grounds of appeal but the same is not argued before the Tribunal at the time of hearing the appeal under s. 254 the legal effect of that would be as if counsel or the representative of the party hs given up that ground though taken in the grounds of appeal. In such a circumstance, it cannot be said that a ground, though taken in the grounds of appeal but not urged before the Tribunal, is a contention which has been raised. Raising of the contention means urging the same at the time of hearing of the appeal itself.Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Reference--QUESTION ARISING FROM TRIBUNAL ...
Tag this Judgment!Psb Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]191ITR41(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petitioner is seeking reference of the following questions to this court : '(a) Whether the Income-tax Department is empowered/entitled to initiate proceedings simultaneously under sections 221 and 140A of the Income-tax Act 1961 Whether penalty imposed pursuant to the said proceedings amounts to imposition of 'double penalty' for a default of an assessed (b) Whether having passed an order in proceedings under sections 221 and 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Department is justified in law in re-initiating proceedings under section 140A for imposing penalty (c) Whether an Assessing Officer ceases to exercise jurisdiction and the Act Whether an incumbent is empowered under section 129 of the Income-tax Act to issue a fresh notice and conduct further proceedings is respect to the matter dealt with by the predecessor-in-office (d) What is the true nature, scope and ambit of section 129 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Venkata Durga Aluminising Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT441TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Iron Wire nails. As there is no market or demand for the said nails at Nandigama they were disposing of the same through their sales depot at Vijayawada. The goods were transported under gate-passes to their sales depots at Vijayawada and selling them in retail. The appellants arrived at the value of the goods during the year 1979-80 at Rs. 14,96,769/- while the value of the nails sold at their depot was arrived Rs. 17,09,770/- by the departmental officer.Under Notification No. 89/79, dated 1-3-1979 the first clearance of goods falling under Tariff Item 68 for home consumption upto a value of 15 lakhs were exempt from payment of duty. The deptt. had taken out the retail sale price of Rs. 17,09,770/- and demanded a duty on the value of Rs. 2,09,770/- (17,09,770 -15,00,000) at 4% ad valorem. On receipt of the reply to the show cause notice issued by the department the Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the dem...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Ceramics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC86
1. In this appeal, the appellants have sought for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad dated 16-10-1989 holding gypsum in natural form undergoing physical and mechanical processes of crushing, grinding and calcination resulting in a form of fluffy powder known as 'Plaster of Paris' (which was in turn captively used by the appellants for manufacture of ceramics wares) is excisable and chargeable to duty. The same was classified on the basis of statutory Note 2 to Chapter 25 under Chapter Heading 2505 of GET. The Additional Collector also confirmed the demand for Rs. 1,76,954.88 P. for the period 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1987 under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The Additional Collector of Central Excise has confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 8-6-1987 signed by Collector in respect of the impugned product and has classified it under Tariff Entry No. 2505.00 and also held that ...
Tag this Judgment!J.M.C. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC89Tri(Delhi)
1. Since the common issues are involved in both the appeals - one filed by the assessee and the other by the Collector - a common order is being passed. 2.1 JMC Industries (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) are engaged in the manufacture of various types of motor vehicle parts falling under Tariff Item 68 CET. Besides manufacturing the above goods, the assessee is also importing forged crankshaft. The said crankshafts are thereafter sent by them outside their factory for machining, grinding etc. on job work basis. After the receipt of the crankshaft thus processed/manufactured by outside units the assessee undertakes the shallock process i.e. applying oil etc. to save the crankshaft from rusting. Thereafter they pack it before despatching to their customers. 2.1A. Before 15-1-1983 the assessee had included the value of the crankshafts manufactured on their behalf by the outside manufacturers and they were paying duty and the value of the crankshafts was also taken into account ...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Steron Castings Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi211
ORDER1. In this application filed by defendant No. 2 under Order 11, Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure it has been prayed that the plaintiff be directed to discover on oath all the documents relating to the matter in suit which are or have been in power and possession of the plaintiff within the period prescribed on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiff's claim is based only on documentary evidence and all the documents in plaintiff's power and possession have not been filed by the plaintiff in the suit nor have they been supplied to the defendant applicant. Further, the plaintiff has got the signatures of the defend and applicant on large number of blank forms and papers and the defendant-applicant apprehends that the pleas, if raised by the defendant in the written statement are likely to be controverter by the plaintiff by filling up those forms and papers so as to defeat the defendant-applicant's defense. thereforee, all the documents which are neces...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Madhu Chawla
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ19
R.N. Mittal, J. (1) This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the order of the District Forum dated 9-2-1990 by which the defendant was directed to pay Rs. 56,246.90 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. (2) Briefly, the facts are that the complainant, purchased a generating set from the defendant appellant and it .was installed in her factory on 5-2-1988. It is alleged that the generating set did not work, and started living trouble from the date of installation. She wrote to the defendant that the generating set was not working property but it could not be repaired by the defendant. She consequently filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of the price with interest. (3) The learned District Forum, after hearing the parties passed the above said order. The defendant has come up in appeal to this Commission. (4) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Forum bad no jurisdiction to try th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT218
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated 27th February. 1990 issued by the respondents imposing penalty/composition fee of Rs. 1,56,788.15. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that perpetual lease in respect of plot of land measuring over 800 sq. yards was executed by the respondents in favor of the petitioner on 5th June, 1981 for constructing a factory. This land was situate at A-60, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-11, New Delhi. According to the terms of the lease the petitioner was required to construct a factory within a stipulated period. The factory was not constructed but the petitioner got the building plans sanctioned and applied for extension of time for completing the construction. The respondents, from time to time, did extend the period within which the petitioner could raise the construction and according to the last extension , the petitioner was required to construct the factory by 31st December, 1987. (3) According to the terms of the le...
Tag this Judgment!