Delhi Court April 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 Central Excise Vs. Priyadarshini Spg. Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC520Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification of "yarn (including sewing thread) of artificial staple fibre not containing generated synthetic staple waste in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power and supplied in a form other than plain (straight) reel hank." 2. The respondents herein manufacture cotton yarn & man-made yarn of various types. They proposed to manufacture a new type of man-made yarn in February 1987 and therefore filed classification lists, for the yarn made out of a blend of artificial staple fibre & generated synthetic staple waste arid for the yarn made out of a blend of artificial staple fibre & imported synthetic staple waste, claiming classification of the blended yarn under Heading 55.05. However, the Department, after subjecting the yarn to chemical analysis, issued a show cause notice to the assessees on 28-4-1987, for assessment under Heading 55.06 on the ground that t...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Varistha Udyog Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD10(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi on the following ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the IAC(A) to allow deduction Under Section 80-1 and 80HH.2. The assessee had installed an industrial unit at Abohar, a notified backward area. During the year in appeal the assessee received a sum of Rs. 9,36,966 on account of job charges for twisting of yarn during the year. The claim of the assessee Under Section 80HH and 80-I was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that separate balance sheet in respect of the unit had not been filed; that the assessee had done job work and was not manufacturing goods on his own account and thirdly, the twisting of yarn does not amount to manufacturing of goods for the purposes of Sections 80HH and 80-1 claims. The CIT(A) considering the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. J.B. Kharwar & Sons [1987] 30 Taxman 22...
Usha Kumari Vs. Parmanand @ Prem Swami
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: II(1990)DMC360; 1990(19)DRJ358
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This case has reached for hearing but unfortunately no one has turned up to argue the petition. I have gone through the file and the impugned order and I find that there is no merit in the petition. (2) The fact are that a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is pending before the learned Magistrate and after the evidence of the petitioner-wife was completed, the case was adjourned for recording evidence of the respondent-husband but the evidence of the respondent was closed without recording any evidence. Later on, an application was moved by brother of the respondent for being examined as a witness which application was rejected. However, the Magistrate thought it fit to record statement to that witness exercising his discretion under Section 3 Ii of the Code. Later on, an application Along with an affidavit was given on behalf of the respondent for permission to adduce evidence to prove that in fact, the petitio...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ravindra Kumar Mahindra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2630; 42(1990)DLT13
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The respondent was prosecuted under section 332 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short Dmc Act). But the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to proceed in the matter on the ground that the complaint was barred by the limitation as set out under section 471 of the Dmc Act. The impugned order says that since the offence had come to the knowledge on 19th of March 1986 the complaint ought to have been filed within six months thereafter but it was in fact filed on 14th October 1986. (2) The short question that was canvassed before us by Mr. Lao is that an amendment came to be effected in the Dmc Act in 1984 which came into force on 10th of December 1985 and section 466A was added to the Dmc Act. According to Mr. Lao since some of the offences under the Dmc Act including the offence under section 332 has been made cognizable and the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made applicable the limitation would be determined by section 458 the Code of Cr...
TIn Box Company Vs. the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT555; 1990LC20(Delhi); [1990]185ITR631(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. As the question involved is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court, we arc disposing of the writ petition immediately. (2) An order under Section 132 was issued where after the business premises of the petitioner was searched. In respect of the assessment year 1984-85, an assessment order was passed on 31st March 1987. The same was challenged in appeal, but the appeal was dismissed on 5th January, 1988. A second appeal was filed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 1). The petitioner also filed applications for adducing additional evidence. Vide an order dated 30th August, 1988 the said appeal was, however, dismissed. We are informed that an application under Section 256(1) has been filed pursuant to the said order dated 30th August, 1988. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 25(2)4 for recalling or rectifying the order dated 30th august, 1988. Vide an order dated 2nd February 1989, this application was rejected. An...
TIn Box Co. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Del)187; [1990]185ITR630(Delhi)
KIRPAL J. - Rule D.B. As the question involved is covered by a Full Bench decision of this court [See [1990] 182 ITR 384, we are disposing of the writ petition immediately.An order as to section 132 was issued where after the business premises of the petitioner were searched. In respect of the assessment year 1984-85, an assessment order was passed on March 31, 1987. The same was challenged in appeal, but the appeal was dismissed on January 5, 1988. A second appeal was filed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 1). The petitioner also filed applications for adducing additional evidence. Vide an order dated August 30, 1988, the said appeal was, however, dismissed. We are informed that an application under section 256 (1) has been filed pursuant to the said order dated August 30, 1988. The petitioner then filed an application under section 254 (2) for recalling or rectifying the order dated August 30, 1988. Vide an order dated February 2, 1989, this application was reject...
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD61(Delhi); (1990)37TTJ(Del)480
ORDERPer F. C. Rustagi, J. M. - This is an appeal, directed against the order u/s. 269-F (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The property, acquisition of which is under dispute, is a plot of lease-hold land measuring 3206.35 sq. mts. (wrongly marked as 3208 sq. mts.), equivalent to 3824 sq. yds. having on it three blocks of buildings - (i) residential house block; (ii) blocks of servant quarters; and (iii) a garrage block. The appeal in question is preferred by the vendee M/s Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.2. Before we go to deal with the contentions raised from the side of the vendee, disputing the acquisition, and those of the Revenue, it will be of immense assistance in case we briefly state the facts in background of the dispute. The property in question was agreed to be sold for Rs. one crore inclusive of a sum of Rs. 35,27,222 as unearned increase paid to the L. & D. O. by the vendee on behalf of the vendor. The vendor of this property was Mrs. Bittoni N. C. Thorvaldsen. It was on 31st...
Singhania Alloys and Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC268Tri(Delhi)
1.1 On 15-11-1985, the Preventive Party of the Central Excise Division, Jaipur made a surprise visit to the appellants' factory manufacturing M.S. ingots. On scrutiny of R.G. 1 register and other Central Excise records it revealed that the said register was filled in upto 14-11-1985. On physical stock challenge of M.S. Ingots the officers noticed that against a book balance of 494 pcs. as on 14-11-1985, only 467 pcs. were actually lying in the stock. Thus, 27 pcs. (weighing 1.890 M.T.) were alleged to have been cleared without payment of Central Excise duty and without cover of Central Excise gate pass. 1.2. On further physical verification 80 pcs. of M.S. Ingots (weighing 6 M.Ts) were found lying separately in the factory without any accountal thereof in the R.G. 1 register. Accordingly, they were seized under the Central Excise law and handed over to the appellants under superdginama. The concerned officer of the appellants' factory admitted the recovery of excess and shortage of th...
Unicorn Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT279TriDel
1. The condonation application in this case has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the supplementary appeal E/142/90-A because originally, a single appeal has been filed against a common order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras dated 21-9-1981 and subsequently, in compliance with the procedural requirements, this supplementary appeal had been filed. On hearing the parties and considering that the main appeal was in time the delay in filing the supplementary appeal is condoned.2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 21-9-1981. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants undertake among other things, manufacture of equipments for the dairy industry and also undertake erection of plants connected with dairy products. On such activity is supply, erection, testing and dismantling of Sangam Dairy Expansion, Vadlamudi for which purpose they manufacture certain items themselves and get certain other items as bought out items. They filed price list...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nav-bharat Currugating
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: (1992)(39)LC79Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with the grant of refund by the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s.Nav-Bharat Currugating Industries Pvt. Ltd., lodged their two refund claims amounting to Rs. 4,304.51 and Rs. 1,112.67 for the period from 12.9.1977 to 11.2.1978 and 14.11.1977 to 14.2.1978 respectively for the duly paid on corrugated boxes under T.I. 68. The goods in question were manufactured from Kraft paper on job basis and cleared on payment of duty on full cost of the finished product (i.e. to say cost of material plus job charges). However, after having paid so, the respondents claimed the refund on the ground that duly is payable only on the job work done and not on full cost of finished product in terms of Notification No. 119/75 dated 10.4.1975, but the Assistant Collector rejected the said refund claims holding that the said-Notification No.119/75 does not apply since there is a material tran...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »