Delhi Court February 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Collector of Customs Vs. Delhi Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC120
1. Collector of Customs, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-appeal No. C3/1371/1986, dated 29-1-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondents, M/s. Delhi Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad had filed a buff bill of entry for warehousing for clearance of 1399.00 M.T. of hot rolled coils in sizes 2.15 x 1025 x coil imported from M/s. Voest Alpine Inter Trading, Argentina to a GIF value of Rs. 41,54,155.30. The above bill of entry was assessed on 31-1-1986. The hot rolled coils imported were assessed under erstwhile CTA Heading 73.13(1) sheets in accordance with dimensions indicated, as per Chapter note (n) of Chapter 73, vide Customs Notification No.34/82, dated 28-2-1982 as amended by Notification No. 186/84 at 60% + 40% of basic and auxiliary duty, respectively. The respondents had filed ex-bond bill of entry No. 683/6-5-1986,1.M. No. 908/85 Line No. 2 for removal of warehouse hot rolled coils. The said...
Basant Lal Raghubir Prasad Vs. Collector of Cental Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(28)LC504Tri(Delhi)
1. The above reference application arises out of Order No. 163/87-D dated 27.2.1987, passed by (his Tribunal, dismissing the appeal E/A.No.932/81-D filed by the appellants (the applicants herein). By order dated 21.5.1981, the Collector of Central Excise, levied duty on branded and unbranded chewing tobacco cleared without payment of duty and confiscated seized tobacco with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine, and imposed a penalty. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs on 31.8.1981 The applicants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government which was transferred to this Tribunal and treated as a deemed appeal. By order dated 27.2.1987, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector and dismissed the appeal. Subsequently the applicants approached the Allahabad High Court contending that the Tribunal had not referred to their submissions on the question of non-observance of the principles of natural justice by ...
W.H. Brady and Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC387Tri(Delhi)
1. Both appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and being disposed of by a common order.2. The charge against the appellants is that M/s. Brady & Morris Engineering Co. (hereinafter referred to as the subsidiary Co.) had manufactured and removed excisable goods i.e. pulley blocks, electric hoists and travelling trollies falling under T.I. 68 valued at Rs. 1,69,429/- from their factory premises by truck No. BMS 2251 belonging to W.H. Brady & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the holding Co.) on 12th and 13th October 1981 without determination and payment of Central Excise duty, without the cover or valid CE transport documents in form G.P. 1 and without accountal in the R.G. 1 Register. After issue of show cause notices for levy of duty on spare parts supplied, on repair charges and erection and assembling charges, seizure of confiscated goods, imposition of penalty and confiscation of the truck, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay passed the impugned ...
Bakeman'S Home Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector Of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC119Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts involved in this appeal are that the appellants manufacture 'Biscuits' falling under Tariff Item 1C of the erstwhile tariff. They use duty paid 'Malt Extract' as one of the inputs which were classified under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile tariff. This Malt Extract was received from M/s. The Malt Company (India) Pvt. Ltd., during the period 1979 to 1984 and credit of duty was availed by the appellants in terms of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 04-06-1979.Subsequently, consequent to the decision of the Delhi High Court completely exempting the product, in the case of M/s. Barmalt (India) Pvt. Ltd., the suppliers M/s. Malt Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. was granted a refund of Rs. 1,24,62,712.25 for the Malt Ex-, tract cleared during the period from 1977 to 1985. In view of the complete exemption granted to the input, the appellants were put on notice by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala Division, and the amount of credit of Rs. 41,067.93 availed as setoff by ...
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT471TriDel
1. This is a transferred revision petition of appellant before Government of India filed by the appellant against the order in revision under Section 35(A) by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I by his Order No. 1 of 1981 rejecting the appellants review petition on the ground that the review petition do not lie before him under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 as it stood then. The appellants had challenged the order in original of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Bombay. By his order F.No. V(68) 18-69/77.2109 dated 21-3-1980, by which the refund claim dated 16-12-1977 of the appellants for a sum of Rs. 1,20,849.29 had been rejected on the ground that the duty paid on the product town gas at the time of its clearance from their factory was correctly paid. He further held that there is no provision in Central Excise law for refund of duty on transit loss on their product after its removal from the factory. He further found that the appellants ha...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ashok Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT571TriDel
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals).2. Learned DR drew attention to the operative portion of the order of the Collector (Appeals) and stated that as all the formalities required by Rule 233(b) had not been duly followed the appeal had been incorrectly allowed by the Collector (Appeals).3. Learned Counsel stated that the respondents are engaged in the work of balancing/testing instruments. They were not engaged in any manufacturing activity or job work and were not required to be subjected to central excise control and were not liable to pay any duty.4. The Asstt. Collector accepted that they were not liable to pay duty on testing and balancing activities undertaken by them. Hence, he also allowed the refund of the some of the amount erroneously paid as duty but rejected the rest of the amount (now in question) on the ground of time bar. A point was made out by the Asstt. Collector that the appellants had not filed their protest in terms of Rule 23...
P.P. Verma Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD27(Delhi)
1. These are appeals by the assessee arising out of his assessments for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. The assessments, which are the subject matter of these appeals, have been made by the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner, Central Range-IV, New Delhi and onto the contentions raised in these appeals is that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction over the assessee. This is the case of a person who has not been assessed for any year prior to assessment year 1984-85. The Central Board of Direct Taxes passed an order dated 14-9-1984 conferring jurisdiction over the case of the" assessee on ITO, Central Circle VIII, New Delhi by way of transfer from ITO, Pvt. Salary Circle (Main), New Delhi. The order purports to have been passed by the CBDT in exercise of powers under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In pursuance of the said orde...
inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs. Avis International (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD217(Delhi)
ORDERPer V. P. Elhence, Judicial Member - In this appeal, filed by the departmental against the order dated 13-11-1986 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi for the assessment year 1981-82, an application dated 24-10-1989 was filed by the assessed respondent purporting to raise the following 'additional ground of appeal :-'That the assessed had shown receipts from cash assistance to the tune of Rs. 12,59,973 which has been taken as profit while computing the income of the appellant. The Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Gedore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd. v. IAC vide order dated 25-3-1988 have held by a majority view that cash compensatory support is not taxable.'2. The assesseds application raises an interesting point because neither the assessed has filed any cross appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) referred to above nor has it chosen to file by the departmental. At the time of the hearing, we persistently asked Shri O. P. Dua,...
Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Sarlesh Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT413; II(1990)DMC105
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment dated 26-11-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and(ib)of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.(2) The appellant had filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. As regards the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on cruelty the learned counsel has not challenged the same and has confined his arguments in this appeal only to the question of desertion. Various allegations regarding desertion have been leveled in the petition. However, in this appeal the learned counsel confined bids arguments to three particular periods when the respondent left the matrimonial home. The first period commenced on 2-12-1969 and ended on .11-4-1970, The second period is from 28-6-1970 to 21-8-1973 and the third period is from May 1974 till January 1978. It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married ...
Sarla Dhawan Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT407
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) In this writ petition the challenge is to the order of the respondent contained in the letter.dated 23rd March,1988 cancelling the allotment of Flat No.100-B, First Floor, in Phase Ii, M&N;, Sarita.Vihar, New Delhi. (3) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner had registered herself for allotment of a Janta category flat with the respondent the Registration Number being 35510, An allotment letter dated 20th October, 1986 was issued to her intimating her about the allotment of the aforesaid flat on the basis of the draw held on 9th October, 1986. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 8741.42 within one month of the issue of the letter. The petitioner alleges that on 18th November, 1986 the said sum was deposited vide the Challan No. 178873 in the State Bank of India, Parliament Street, Nev/Delhi. According to the petitioner she completed all the formalities, and she presented the documents at Windo No. 9inD.D.A.Vikas Sadan New Delhi in December...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »