Delhi Court May 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just 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. Gopal Jee Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC208
2. Detailed facts of the case are immaterial for the purpose of this order, save to state broader outlines. The respondent imported a consignment of 126 bales declared to contain wool waste of quantity of 47202 kgs. valued at UK 40,121.70 cif Bombay and sought clearance.However, the Additional Collector of Customs found the importation illegal and ordered for the confiscation of the same under the provisions of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Import arid Export (Control) Act, 1947. After holding so, he allowed the respondent to get the release of the imported goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 3,25,000/- and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondent under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. It appears that the Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of their powers under Section 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 took the matter in review and directed the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay to file the application (Appeal)...
Alpine Inds. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT364TriDel
1. This misc. application is filed with a prayer to modify the Order No. 45/89-C dated 28-2-1989 passed in stay application No.E/Stay/84/89-C and to waive the predeposit of duty.2. The applicants by their application E/Stay/84/89 in Appeal No.E/167/89-C sought for dispensing with predeposit of the duty demanded pending disposal of the appeal. During the course of the arguments the appellants brought to the notice of this Tribunal an order passed by the High Court of Delhi wherein the show cause notice dated 31-3-1985 which culminated into the impugned proceedings were challenged. The relevant order dated 12th May, 1988 reads as follows: "Heard the proceeding pursuant to the notice to show cause notice will continue and if any demand is raised it will not be recovered without obtaining orders from this court." It was also pointed out that the writ petition was also pending on the day when the orders were passed in the said petition.3. The applicants have now come forward with the prese...
Semi Conductor Complex Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC101Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants had imported an Ion-Implanter machine for which a service and spares contract had been executed with the supplier which, inter alia, provided, for free service, replacements of defective spares and parts free of charge in lieu of replaced parts for the period of the contract.1.2 A special type of compressor of the above lon-Implanter machine became defective and needed replacement. The supplier in terms of the above contract despatched a replacement 'compressor cryo 208'. The compressor was supplied on charge basis and the value for custom purposes only was indicated as such in the invoice. The Appellants filed a bill of entry dated 8-7-88 for the clearance of the above compressor claiming OGL No. 4/88-91 in respect of Import Trade Control.1.3 However, on examination of the consignment by the Customs it was found that the supplier had also included some other parts of the above machine besides the compressor which were not shown in the above invoice. The supplier ha...
State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Pawan Kumar Chopra and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2417
ORDER1. This petition has been brought by the Delhi Administration against order dt. Nov. 11, 1980, of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, by which he had discharged respondents 1 and 2. 2. Facts, in brief, are that a sample of ghee (special grade AG Mark) was lifted from a sealed tin from the respondents on Aug. 11, 1978, which on analysis was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst and it was again declared adulterated when second sample was sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. A complaint was filed after obtaining necessary consent in writing against respondents 1 and 2 as the vendors. This adulterated ghee was stated to have been manufactured and packed by M/s. Shankar Dass Sardar Singh and was sold through M/s. Goverdhan ghee Laboratories who is turn had sold the same to respondents 1 and 2. The complaint was filed against six accused including the vendor, distributor and the manufacturer. The learned Magistrate giving benefit of S. 19 of the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Chander Bala Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR656(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1981-82, the petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions : '1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the valuation of shares of Messrs. Indofil Chemicals Ltd., was to be made on yield basis and not in accordance with rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the value of shares of Messrs. Modipon Ltd., was to be taken as per rule 1 D of the Wealth-tax Rules when the shares of the said company were being quoted regularly in the stock exchange ?' 2. As regards question No. 1, the same is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT [1985] 159 ITR 549. 3. As regards question No. 2, the Tribunal itself has made a reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the valuation of sh...
The National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Singer Company and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR1(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT152; 1990(18)DRJ308
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Sections 14, 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. 1940 (for short the Arbitration Act) for setting aside the interim award made at London on 9-8-1989 by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in effect under the Icc Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, and under the Icc Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration. There are two respondents, the first respondent being the contesting respondent. The three members of the Arbitral Tribunal have also been added as party-respondent No. 2. Along with the petition the petitioner also filed an application seeking interim relief restraining the respondents from proceeding with the arbitration during the pendency of these proceedings. (2) On notice being issued the first respondent. The Singer Company, filed replies in opposition and raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as the interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal was a foreign award with...
Regal Traders Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi282; 42(1990)DLT44; 1990RLR334
R.N. Pyne, J. (1) In this writ petition, the petitioners have thrown a challenge to the Lt. Governor's order of demolition and sealing of the premises dated 12th January, 1989 affirming the orders of demolition of the Appellate Tribunal dated 29-6-1988 and of Zonal Engineer (B) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi dated 23-10-1987 as also the orders for sealing of the premises of the Appellate Tribunal dated 29th June, 1988 and of the Deputy Commissioner (L) dated 3/8th September, 1987, and have prayed for quashing of the same. They have also prayed for as writ of mandamus restraining the respondents Delhi and others. from demolishing the building on plot No. 411 1 2 2 situated in Lal Dora (Firni or extended abadi) of village Mundka. in the Union Territory of Delhi and to unseal the premises (2) The relevant facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioners have raised some construction on plot No. 411 1 2 2, Village Mundka, Delhi, which according to them, falls in Lal Do...
Navbharat Banaspati and Allied Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1990
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT485TriDel
1. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of vegetable products falling under CET Item 13 and refined oil (processed vegetable non-essential oil) falling under CET Item No. 12 of the erstwhile First Schedule of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It was alleged against them that they had prepared one gate pass for the clearance of a consignment consisting of 700 tins of vegetable products and the same was consigned to Navbharat Banaspati & Allied Industries, but instead, it was transported to M/s. Purshotam Lal Vishwa Nath of Jal-landhar City without the cover of any valid documents, such as gate pass, inasmuch as the consignment was destined for Hoshiarpur whereas the consignment was transported to Jallandhar. So, the appellant contravened provisions of Rule 52(A) of C.E. Rules, 1944 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). The second allegation was that a consignment of 700 tins of vegetable products was received at Khanpur gate octroi post at Hoshiarpur on 8-11-1977 at 1.30...
Malhoo Miyan Yakub Miyan Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT464TriDel
5. In all these appeals, show cause notice was issued by the officer whose designation was shown as under : So, the appellants have raised a preliminary objection that the authority concerned was not vested with powers of Assistant Collector of Central Excise and so, he was not empowered to issue show cause notice and subsequently, show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction and so entire proceedings were ab initio void and require to be set aside. In some appeals, this was raised as one of the grounds of appeal and in some appeals, the appellants moved Misc. Application seeking permission to raise this as an additional ground of appeal. All these misc. applications were heard and allowed. Thereafter, the appeals were heard only on this preliminary point of jurisdiction. As a common issue arises in all these appeals, they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.6. The above fact is not in dispute. So, it is an admitted fact that the show cause not...
Lalita Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ152
P.K. Kartha, Vice-Chairman (1) The grievance of the applicant, who has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribanals Act 1985. is that the respondents have not regularised her services w.e.f. 19-12-1988 despite the Fact that she bad been granted temporary status. She has also claimed arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 5-5-86, when she was granted temporary status by order dated 17-8-1988.(2) The applicant was appointed as a Water woman/Casual Labourer on 26-4-1984 in the grade of Ra. 750-950 under Jhansi Division of the Central. Railway, under Chief Reservation Supervisor, Running Train Reservation, IRCA. New Delhi. By letter dated 24-4-1985, Running Train Reservation Control (Central Railway) having their officer in I.R.C.A. Building, State Entry Road, New Delhi, was sanctioned a permanent post of Waterman to serve drinking water to the staff employed under its control. To consider her suitability fur appointment as permanent Water woman, the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »