Delhi Court July 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.
Chandraswami Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: 1990(30)LC313(Delhi)
M.K. Chawla, J.1. Sometime in the month of September, 1987, one Lakhubhai Pathak, a non-resident Indian, residing in London forwarded his complaint to the High Commissioner of India, against Shri Chandraswami and his associate/ Secretary Shri K. L. Aggarwal for dishonestly including him to part with two cheques totalling US $ 1,00,000/- in a New York hotel in January 4, 1984, as consideration for obtaining some contract for the complainant. The said complaint was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in or about October 1987 on the basis of which an FIR under Section 420 read with Section 120B, I.P.C. was registered.2. Both the accused persons were arrested and later on granted bail by the Court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 17.2.1988, with the condition that they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. Later on, they moved an application for modification of the order to the extent that they be permitted to go ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC354Tri(Delhi)
1. By the captioned application the applicant has proposed the following alleged questions of law said to have arisen out of Order No.A/425/89-NRB dated 24.10.1989 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.E/1551/87-NRB filed by the applicant against the present respondent M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Kanpur. (1) Whether there is any statutory provision to determine 'relevant date' for computing the period of six months from the date of payment of duty otherwise than the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? (2) Who is the competent authority to whom an application for refund is to be made particularly when no practice was prevalent in this Collectorate to receive such application on behalf of the Assistant Collector by the Sector Officer/Range Officer and more particularly when the latter had specifically advised the respondents to move the application before the Assistant Collector and the respondents had sufficient time to move the refund application, a...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Fine Chem Laboratories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC241Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad has preferred these two appeals against orders No. 200/89(H) and 201/89(H) both dated 4-12-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras in favour of the two respondents herein.2. The facts in brief are that the respondents manufacture 'Liver Extract' Viz. Liver concentrate (paste and powder) proteolysed lever paste and powder, liver injection crude and liver fraction. The respondents filed classification list claiming assessment under Heading 30.03 CETA, 1985 which covers 'Medicaments' (including veterinary medicaments). The Asstt. Collector in his orders in original dated 2-3-1989 classified the goods under Heading 30.01 CETA which covers "glands or other organs... not elsewhere specified or included." On appeal the Collector (Appeals) in the two impugned orders held that liver extract is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20 covering "Medicaments (other than patent or proprietary)... systems," on the ground that such cla...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rosa Sugar Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT571TriDel
1. Following purported questions of law have been raised in the subject reference application :- (1) Whether there is any statutory provision to determine 'relevant date' for computing the period of six months from the date otherwise than as provided under Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? (2) Who is the competent authority and to whom an application for refund is to be made in particular when no practice or procedure was prevalent in this Collectorate to receive such application on behalf of the Assistant Collector by the Inspector/Range Superintendent? (3) Whether the appellants were not obliged to file the claim within the period of limitation and before the competent authority prescribed under Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? (4) Whether the authority competent to sanction the claim has within jurisdiction amended the Show Cause Notice and finalized the claim the advance1 credit of which was allowed provisionally (5) Whether or not the ...
Puran Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ377; 42(1990)DLT305; 1990(19)DRJ179
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order dated 20-6-89 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short, Cofeposa Act) by Shri A.K. Batabyal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods. This followed an incident dated 31-5- 89 when at the pointing out of the petitioner 204 gold biscuits of 10. tolas each bearing foreign markings were recovered from a secret cavity specially designed above the window in the wall facing entrance of a bath room-cum-toilet on the first floor of house No. 504, Green Avenue, Amritsar.(2) The petitioner has challenged his detention by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for quashing the aforesaid order of d...
Oriental Textile Processing Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC115Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants in their appeal against the order of the Additional Collector No. 6/CE/87(C.No. V(22) ADC/15/63/ AAR/86/3051 dated 27-03-1987 have appealed for setting aside the order involving duty amount of Rs. 12,703.14 and the penalty of Rs. 75,000/-. Briefly stating the case, the appellants have said that they are engaged in processing of fabrics on job work and that the allegation levelled against them was that 3 Cycle Carts carrying 62 Titans (pieces) of man-made fabrics were intercepted near Shingar Cinema and the Central Excise officers found the goods removed from the factory without cover of gate-pass and further it was alleged that in addition to 62 pieces, three Thans lying inside the factory premises were found not accounted in the RG-1 Register and also the allegation that 197 Thans of Acylic knitted fabrics were found in lots in grey condition and not found recorded in the grey goods register and the others were waiting to be entered. The lot numbers were not traceab...
Peter Masih Vs. Smt. Angllina Masih and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi20
ORDERSunanda Bahdare, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 4th July 1983 in H.M.A. case No. 98 of 1982 whereby the petition for divorce filed by the appellant-husband under Ss. 10 and 34 of the Indian Divorce Act was dismissed.2. The brief facts are as follows:-The marriage of the appellant was solemnised with respondent No. I-on 24th June 1970 in accordance with Christian religious rites. After their marriage they resided together at 4 Rajpur Road, Delhi and at, !St. Thomas Church, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. Respondent No. I gave birth to a second Niraj on 18th October 1971 and a daughter named Renu on 16th July 1973. They continued to live together till 7th May 1976. It is alleged that respondent No. I left the matrimonial home on 7th May 1976 and started residing with one Krishan Lal in house No. D-1/78 Krishna Market, Opposite Community Centre, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in one room tenanted premises. The children...
Madan Lal Anand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT267
Usha Mehra, J.(1) This is a third round of litigation started by the petitioner (Madan Lal Anand), challenging the legality of the detention order dated 30th September, 1988 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and. Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (for short 'the Cofeposa Act'). (2) The petitioner (Madan Lal Anand) earlier had filed a similar writ petition No. 555 of 1988 in this Court, which was dismissed on 17th March, 1989 thereafter he filed Special Leave Petition . (Criminal) in Supreme Court being No. 950/89 against the judgment of this Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment datcd26th October, 1989. The present writ petition is filed for the same relief but on the basis of some alleged fresh and additional grounds which according to petitioner, were not taken up or urged in the writ petition as well as in the S.L.P. It is not necessary, for the view that we are going to take, to deal in detail with the grounds on which the order of detention wa...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mrf Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC315
1.01 On 3-3-1986 the respondents herein filed a classification list No.5/85-86 claiming classification of 'vulcanising solution' under Chapter sub-heading 4006.90. This classification list was given approval by the Assistant Collector on 10-6-1986.1.02 Subsequently as per advice of the departmental authorities, the respondents filed the revised classification list No. 21/86-87 dated 31-3-1987 under sub-heading 4005.00 claiming exemption under Notification 377/86 dated 29-7-1986. The revised classification list was filed without prejudice to the claim of the respondents herein for classification of the said product under sub-heading 4006.90.1.03 The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice to the respondents as to why their claim for the benefit of Notification 377/86 be not disallowed. The respondents in their reply dated 22-5-1987 contended that the product 'vulcanising solution' merited classification under sub-heading 4006.90 as it was a finished article.The Assistant Collect...
Indian Petrochemicals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: (1993)(65)ELT545TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of various orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay which have been filed by M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) and involve a common issue of classification of certain products manufactured by M/s. IPCL and the consequential orders demanding differential duty on these products.Since the appeals involve a common issue, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. The facts in brief are that M/s.IPCL manufactures petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, viz., ethylene, propylene and butadiene. On the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the appellants had submitted a classification list classifying the aforesaid products under sub-heading 2711.12 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department approved the classification list accordingly. When the classification list was filed by the appellants for the first time on the introduction of the CETA, 1985, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »