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.
Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ669; 42(1990)DLT186; 1990(19)DRJ121
P.K. Babri, J.(1) These two petitions. Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 1507/88 filed by Vinod Kumar Jain and Criminal Revision No.53/89 filed by the State (Central Bureau of Investigation), are against the order dated October 19, 1988, of a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by which he had directed framing of charges against accused Vinod Kumar Jain, R.K. Jain and Kishan Lal Suri for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').and another charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code against accused K.L.Suri and charges under Section 109 read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code against accused V.k. Jain and he by the same order had discharged the accused K L. Narang, Swaraj Jaggi and Sudershan Kumar Tandon. (2) Vinod KumarJain has pleaded for quashment of charges framed against him and also against his .other co-accused pleading that the main offence of conspiracy having been allegedly committed at Singapore and no permission...
Laxmi Narayan Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC25Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 4/88-Customs, dated 15-6-1988 passed by Shri B.C. Rastogi, Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur the appellant has filed the present appeal.2. At the outset it was the contention of the learned Consultant Shri A.L. Mathur that Shri B.C. Rastogi, who was holding the office of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur relinquished the charge on 27-5-1988 whereas the impugned order is dated 15-6-1988.3. In reply it was the contention of the learned SDR that as per the record and the communication received from the Additional Collector, Jaipur, it appears that the draft was approved during the tenure of Shri B.C. Rastogi, but was issued subsequently.4. We have considered the submissions. From the copy of the impugned order supplied to the appellant, we find that it bears Order-in-Original No. 4/88-Customs dated "THE 15-6-1988". It does not say that it was issued on 15-6-1988. At the end Shri B.C. Rastogi has signed the ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. National Organic Chemical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC541Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of petrochemical products in their factory by cracking raw naptha at high temperature and pressure. Their factory premises have been declared as a "Refinery" by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue & Insurance) vide Order No. 18/19/66-Tax-III dated 16-5-1967. Along with similar petrochemical products, they produced ethylene, propylene and butadiene in the said factory since 1968 and filed classification lists from time to time classifying these three products under Item 11-AA(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No 276/67 dated 21-12-1967. The classification lists were approved by the Department from time to time. In November, 1984, the Central Excise Collectorate, Thane issued a Trade Notice to the effect that petroleum gases, viz., ethylene, propylene and butadiene, manufactured from raw naptha in a petrochemical refinery and ...
Rukhma Devi and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)(36)LC63Tri(Delhi)
1. All these four appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Original No. 6/88 dated 11.7.1988, whereby the Collector had ordered for the absolute confiscation of the seized gold and foreign currency and also imposed various penalties upon all the four appellants.2. At the outset it was argued by Shri A.L. Mathur, learned Consultant for the appellants that from the Order-in-original sent to the appellants it would appear that it was passed on 11.7.1988 by Shri B.C.Rastogi, Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur, whereas he had relinquished the charge of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur on 27.5.1988. Consequently, the impugned order passed by Shri B.C. Rastogi was without jurisdiction.3. It may be recalled that along with these four appeals four stay applications were also filed for dispensation of the requirement of the pre-deposit and amount of penalty and on 10.5.1989 it was contended by Miss Renuka Mann, learned SDR that the date 11.7.1988 was the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manoj Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR598(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether a partnership firm can consist of more than 2 partners where one individual is a partner in his individual capacity and also a partner as karta of Hindu undivided family. There is no decision of this court on this point and we are informed that a similar question is pending adjudication in the Supreme Court, though a number of High Courts have taken the view that it is permissible for one individual to be a partner in his individual capacity as well as a karta. In our opinion, a question of law does arise and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed-firm was entitled to grant of registration ?' 2. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated India Exports
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR125(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following three questions to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled to claim the expenditure under the head 'carpet gifted to foreign buyer' even though the same was hit by the provisions of rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed-firm was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on expenditure incurred in connection with the carpet gifted to the foreign buyer? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled to weighted deduction on expenses claimed under the head 'Packing and forwarding charges?' In our opinion, question No. 1 is a pure question of fact and rule 6B is, on the face of it, not applicable because that rule applies to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goyal Gases P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Del)154; [1991]188ITR216(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions of law to this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 263? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue ?' 2. The assessed carried on the business of filling gas in the cylinders and supplying the same to the consumers. It buys gas from the suppliers and if the cylinders require repairs, the same are repaired by someone else but the expenses are incurred by the assessed. Furthermore, the customers are required to furnish security for the cylinders which are supplied to them. 3. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on the cylinders and also allowed expenses incurred on its repairs. Furthermore, the Incom...
Wires and Fabrics (S.A.) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT514TriDel
1. These two appeals viz. E/2864/84-B1 and E/2186/85-B1 were filed by M/s. Spinning Accessories Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur, as they were known at that time. Subsequently they had changed their name to M/s. Wires & Fabrics (S.A.) Pvt. Ltd. and had intimated the said change to the Registry. The main issue involved in the appeals is whether the scrap obtained in the course of manufacture of wire netting would be chargeable to duty under Central Excise Tariff Item 68 as in force at the material time.Accordingly, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. E/2864/84-B1 is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.194-CE/JPR/84 dated 10-10-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi observing that the wire netting scrap produced and cleared by the appellants satisfy the test for goods to attract Central Excise duty, as there was no doubt about marketability of such scrap. The present appeal is against this decision on the ques...
Silver Chem Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT634TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2-1-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III Collectorate, Thane by which he had demanded duty amounting to Rs. 5,45,160.60 on the products termed as speciality oils manufactured by the appellants herein and cleared during the period 9-1-1981 to 17-10-1981 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants herein. The appellants are manufacturers of petroleum products, namely, scinfreez, scinfrey, scindol, scintex and scingin. The departmental officers visited the factory of the appellants on 7-12-1981 and drew samples of the products which are manufactured by them from duty-paid light diesel oil, as raw material, in high vacuum distillation unit and are distilled into various fractions. The samples were tested by the Dy. Chief Chemist, Central Excise, Bombay and his report showed that the products meet the specifications of the goods falling under Tariff Item 8 of Central Excise Tariff and one of the produ...
Umedica Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT130TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11-12-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay dated 25-4-1987. The appellants herein imported Cimetidine which they cleared on payment of Customs duty and additional duty of Customs (CVD). Thereafter they filed the refund claim for reassessment of the goods for CVD purposes claiming the benefit of Exemption Notification 234/82-CE which was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that the goods were included in the Pharmacopoeia only on and after 1-1-1985 whereas they had been imported and cleared before 31-12-1984. While rejecting the appeal against the Asstt. Collector's order the Collector (Appeals) observed that he had referred the matter to the Asstt. Drugs Controller, Bombay who confirmed that the goods were not appearing in any Pharmacopoeia before 1-1-1985.2. Shri B.S. Gujral, Manager Imports of the appellants...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »