Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 9 of about 110 results (0.020 seconds)Balvinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992CriLJ93
Bansal, J. (1) Balvinder Singh has filed this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the. Constitution of India read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for the immediate release of the petitioner-detenu with prayers: (1) to quash the -impugned order of detention and (2) to quash the declaration.(2) On 6th February, 1990 Shri Mahinder Prasad. Joint Secretary, Government of India, an officer specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (hereinafter called the ACT) ordered for the detention of' the petitioner with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. After the passing of this order a reference was made to the Advisory Board in pursuance of which the Beard met on 30tl- April, 1990. The Board gave its advice dat...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Voltas Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT82TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of the show cause notice dated 3-9-1982 issued by the Government of India under the provisions of Section 36(2) (as it then existed) of the CESA 1944, seeking to review the order of the Appellate Collector by which the price of sales by the respondents herein to their sole distributors Voltas Limited, was held to be the correct price in accordance with Notification No. 120/75 dated 30-4-1975. The assessees were manufacturing excisable goods falling under T.I. 68 CET and opted to pay duty on the invoice price in terms of Notification No. 120/75. The adjudicating authority held that condition (iv) of Notification No. 120/75 had been contravened inasmuch as Voltas Limited was a "related person" and the prices to Voltas were influenced by commercial relationship in the business and he accordingly ordered assessment according to Section 4 value. The Appellate Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector holding that Voltas Limited was not a "related pe...
Tag this Judgment!Northern India Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC143
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Collector of Customs, confiscating 60,000 kgs of polyester staple fibre imported by the appellants and sold to one Soma Textiles, Ahmedabad in contravention of the terms and conditions of the advance import licence and the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 117/78 under which the goods had been imported and cleared free for duty, and imposing penalties upon both parties. The case of the Department is that goods imported under advance licence were sold to Soma Textiles on the basis of the markings on the wrappers used to pack polyester fibre and bale numbers corresponding to shipping marks found on certain Bills of Entry.2. At the outset, Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the appellants raised the preliminary point of jurisdiction of the Collector, Ahmedabad, to adjudicate upon an offence in relation to import at Bombay port and cited several decisions of this Tribunal in support of his contention that adjudicati...
Tag this Judgment!Allied Chemicals and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(38)LC268Tri(Delhi)
Appeal No.C/287/87-C Allied Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. 1991 (32) ECR 279 Cegat SB-C, in paragraph-9 of the order, for the portion "In light of above, we have to consider whether the goods, in question, can be described as drug or drug aid/intermediate. It is true that in CCE, Bombay v. Pharmaceutical Laboratories (supra), one of the ld. Members of the Bench, Shri G.Sankaran, Member (T) (as he then was) had opined that definition of drug as given in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, could be taken into consideration and in that view, in his esteemed opinion, galetin capsules, which was the product, in question, in the said matter, should be considered as 'drug' and eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 55/75 (as it was in force at the relevant time), but the majority opinion was that the said product is a drug intermediate and would be covered by Notification No. 62/78 (as it was in force at the relevant time). This was a three-member Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Alkolics and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC520Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the learned Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The learned counsel stated that in this case the learned Assistant Collector had not allowed availing of modvat credit on mercury and graphite used in the manufacture of caustic soda on the ground that they are used as Cathode and Anode and thus constitute essential parts of the electrolytic cell. Hence they are in the nature of parts of the equipment used for manufacture of caustic soda and were not eligible to qualify as inputs under Rule 57(a).3. It was their contention that the learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in confirming this order as mercury and graphite are actually inputs and are consumed in the manufacture of caustic soda. In the electrolytic process graphite and mercury take part in chemical reaction and sodium amalgum which is a compound of sodium and mercury is formed. The said sodium amalgum is allowed to react with water to form sodium h...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Synthetic Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC27Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of learned Collector (Appeals) dated 30-3-1988.The learned counsel stated that in this case certain goods had been taken out of the factory on payment of normal duty but due to some reasons the cartons had to be brought back and the goods had to be re-processed.2. The prescribed procedure was duly followed and there is no dispute about the facts.3. The only question involved is as to whether the entire amount of refund due claimed by them on the entire quantity of goods brought back was required to be payable or the refund was required to be restricted to lesser amount sanctioned by the department.4. Out of 101 cartons brought back after re-processing the total number of cartons of good quality came to be 94 and the goods equivalent to remaining 7 cartons could only be considered as waste after reprocessing. The dispute is regarding this waste which has arisen out of re-processing of damaged yarn which was returned.5. It was their contention that...
Tag this Judgment!Pushp Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]190ITR618(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. In this petition, in respect of the assessment year 1962-63, the petitioner has sought to refer the following questions to this court : '(1) Whether the finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessed had not been able to produce any evidence to establish the genuineness of the cash credits aggregating to Rs. 25,000 has been recorded in disregard of the material available on record, thereby rendering such finding wholly unsustainable in law (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that even though the assessed had filed confirmation letters from the respective creditors and had furnished the complete names and addresses of such creditors with a request to the Income-tax Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditors, still the burden which lay upon the assessed to establish the genuineness of such cash credits had not been discharged, particularly in a situation where a period of almost 14 years had pa...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Madan Lal Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1991)BC380; 43(1991)DLT358
M.L. Varma, J. (1) This is a revision petition filed against an order dated 21.9.89 of the Insolvency Judge, Delhi on two applications made by the petitioner herein under Sections 28 and 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By this order the learned Court disposed of both the applications. The application under Section 35 was rejected by the order against which admittedly an appeal has been filed by the petitioner berein. As regards the application under Section 28, the permission was granted for filing the suit against the insolvents as well as the guarantors subject to the conditions that if the applicant viz., the petitioner herein succeeded ultimately in the suit it shall be forbidden from proceeding against the person and property of the insolvents namely respondents 2 and 3 herein. The revision petition is against this part of the said order. (2) Mr. Sham Babu, appearing for respondents 2 to 4 has raised a preliminary objection in regard to ...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT716
M.L. Verma, J. (1) This writ petition is based on the provisions of Section 11.A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The provisions of the said Section of the said Act came into force with effect from 24.9.84, and read as under : '11-A.Period within which an award shall be made : (1) The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse : Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the Award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.' (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his case is covered by the Proviso to the aforesaid Section. A couple of dates may be noticed here The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Conway Printers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC353Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay, has filed an appeal being agrieved from an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. In column No. 3 the date of communication has been mentioned as 21st March, 1984 and the appeal was received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 11th September, 1984. Simultaneously an application for condonation of delay was also attached along with the appeal.2. Shri M.K. Sohal, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. He reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. Shri Sohal pleaded that for coming to the conclusion whether any appeal has to be filed or not processing of the file had to be done, and the file was misplaced and as such, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. He has pleaded for condonation of delay.3. Ms. Rupa Kala, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!