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.
A and K Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC786Tri(Delhi)
1. Undaunted by the consequences that failure to comply with the Stay Order dated 25-5-1984 passed by this Tribunal in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 may entail the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants have again requested for modification of the said Stay Order dated 25-5-1984. (i) By Order-in-Original No. 46/83 dated 21-12-1983, the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi inter alia demanded a duty of Rs.1,86,184.72 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs.40,000/- upon the appellants. Against that order the appellants filed their present appeal. Under Section 35F, the appellants were required to deposit the amount of duty demanded and the penalty levied, but instead, the appellants moved their application in terms of the Proviso to the said Section 35F for dispensing with the requirement of such deposit along with their appeal. The said application was registered as Stay Application No. E/Stay/406/...
Gujarat State Fertilizers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT542TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-appeal No. M-1276/BD-562/86 dated 28-8-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of Anhydrous Ammonia which is used in the manufacture of fertilizers falling under Item No. 14HH of the Central Excise Tariff. They also removed the same for use in the manufacture of molten urea covered under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The molten urea so manufactured is used by the appellants in the manufacture of melamine which is also subjected to duty of excise under T.I. 68. In respect of quantity of ammonia used during the period Oct., 1984 to Jan., 1985 in the manufacture of molten urea cleared to melamine plant, the appellants were asked to pay duty on ammonia removed without payment of duty. The contention of the appellants before the authorities below that ammonia which ...
M.P. Srivastava and anr. Vs. K.V. Vashist
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi530; 1990RLR293
Bahri, J. (1) This criminal revision has been brought against the order dated August 21, 1981 of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by which he directed the summoning of the petitioners as accused in a complaint case filed by respondent for offences punishable under Sections 323, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code. (2) The legal question raised in this criminal revision is to the effect that whether a Magistrate even after accepting the final report filed by the police still can take cognizance of an offence upon a complaint or a protest petition on the same or similar allegations of the facts, already stand now decided by the Supreme Court in Gopal Vijay Verma versus Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and others; 1983 S.C.C:(Cri.) 110(1) in a very short judgment given by the Supreme Court in which it has been laid down that the High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of a case upon a complaint because he had earlier refused to take...
Nilinite Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: (1993)(64)ELT207TriDel
1. The appeal arises out of an order No. S/49-9/82SIIB of the Collector enhancing the value of the goods, and imposing redemption fine and penalty on the consignment of 'Aniseeds' imported from Hongkong.2. The impugned goods are imported by the appellants in two consignments each of 66 bags (1980 kgs) and 66 bags (3000 kgs).According to the appellants the goods namely Aniseeds Chinese are broken quality. They declared the value at Rs. 23,459.72 and Rs. 35,545/- respectively. The Asstt. Collector enhanced the value to Rs. 43,560/- and Rs. 66,000/- and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 3,500/- and penalty of Rs. 250/-and Rs. 300/- respectively. The Collector of Appeals confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector against which the present appeal is filed.3. The proposal to enhance the declared value is based on three grounds: (i) The invoice Nos. 81098 dated 29th June, 1981 and C81112 dated 18th August, 1981 of M/s. National Native Produces and Animal Byproducts Import &am...
intertrade Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT455TriDel
1. The appellants imported a consignment of 325 cartons containing Polyester Film coated with Ferric Oxide measuring 12 mm. x 325 mm. x 14500 ft. approximately. The goods were described in the invoice as above in 325 pieces. They sought clearance of the goods under OGL vide Appendix 6, List 8, part I, Item 565(48) of the Import Policy for April, 1985 - March, 1988 (in short AM 85-88). The Customs Authorities considered the goods to be Audio Magnetic Tapes in Jumbo Roll which appeared in Appendix 3, Part A, Sri. 607(4), which is a list of limited permissible items for raw-materials, components, consumables, tools and spares. According to the customs authorities, the goods also fell under Sri. No. 106A of Appendix 2, Part B under the heading "Engineering Items", import of which required import licence. In the impugned order, the Collector has, therefore, held that the import of the goods was not permissible under OGL vide Appendix 6 of AM 85-88 (Supra). As the appellants did not produce...
Re-rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC237
1. When this appeal was heard, Mr. Mookherjee, the learned counsel for M/s. Re-Rolling Mills, the appellants, said that their appeal was rejected by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta without giving them a hearing. Had they been given a hearing, they would have explained that they had posted their appeal 5 or 6 days before the last date for filing the appeal. Mr. Mookherjee was then asked whether he made any application for condonation of delay. He replied that he could not imagine that a letter addressed 5 or 6 days before the last date would take so long to reach the Collector (Appeals)'s office. He had no answer to a question as to why the appeal could not be posted 15 or 20 days or even a month before the last date.2. It is clear that the appellants filed their appeal in the last few remaining days of the time limit allowed by law for filing an appeal.In doing so, they took a risk and failed to take sufficient care to protect their own interest. They should have known that there ar...
H.D.S. Malhotra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD48(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83 is directed against the order dated 1-10-1986 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi.2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and have raised an interesting question to be decided in this appeal. The only question that has to be decided is whether the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee from its employer M/s. Eicher Good earth Ltd. is taxable or not in the hands of the assessee.3. Brief facts in the background may first be noted. The assessee has been working with M/s. Eicher Good earth Ltd. since 1960. He became a paid executive director of the company in April, 1979. During the year relevant to assessment year 1982-83 the assessee received gross salary of Rs. 1,04,125. For assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 gross salary received was Rs. 80,400, Rs. 92,570 and Rs. 1,00,605 respectively. The employer company deducted tax at source on the aforesaid payment of Rs. 1,00,000. T...
Swaraj Soni Vs. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Bu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT261
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Smt. Swaraj Soni has prayed for a writ. of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated October 15, 1987 and the final order dated December 9, 1987 passed by the managing committee of the Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Society). The Managing committee of the Society has informed the petitioner vide the impugned letter dated December 9,1987 that 'she did not fulfill the basic condition of being an employee or ex-employee of the Ministry/Department of Rehabilitation or any of its subordinate offices and, thus, no longer can be treated as valid member of the Society...' (2) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner has been that she was a displaced person and was an employee of the Department of Social Welfare a subordinate office of the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The petitioner applied for enrolment as a memb...
Sunder Lal Vs. Rehabilitaton Ministery Employees Co-operative House Bu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT82
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) The short question for consideration in this writ petition is about the correctness of the decision of the Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Society') conveyed vide letter dated April 6, 1988 to the petitioner that he did not fulfill the basic conditions of being an employee or ex-employee of Ministry/Department of Rehabilitation or any of its subordinate offices and so could no longer be treated as a valid member of the Society in terms of Section 2(k) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). (2) The brief facts necessary for the decision of this writ petition are as follows:- (3) Respondent No. 1-Society was registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act in the year 1959 and formed with the object of acquiring land to develop it and to be allotted to the members for construction of houses. The petitioner joined the Estate Office, Govern...
Gurbachan Singh Vs. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative Hou ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT689
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Ourbachan Singh has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or directions thereby quashing the order dated May 17, 1989 of Lieutenant Governor, Delhi in case No. 20/85-CA. He has further prayed for an appropriate direction declaring that the order dated January 9, 1985 by Deputy Registrar, Delhi in Case No. F-DR/Arb./Coop./64 is valid. He has further prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to respondent No. 2 to continue and proceed with the arbitration proceedings. (2) It would be necessary to narrate the relevant facts leading to the filing of this petition. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Society') respondent no. 1 was formed for the benefits of the employees of the Rehabilitation Ministry. One of the main objects of the Society was to acquire either through o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »