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.
Mohd. Liaqat Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT644
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' seeking quash meant of the detention order dated January 30, 1990, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods and also from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only two points in support of the petition. It has been urged that there has occurred an undue and unexplained delay in passing the order of detention when as a matter of fact the occurrence took place on May 14, 1989, whereas the detention order was actually passed on January 30, 1990 and thus, nexus between the object of passing the detention order and the prejudicial activity of the petitioner stood snapped. He has urged that it was a case of solitary incident an...
Rajasthan Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT126TriDel
1. This is an appeal by M/s. Rajasthan Udyog against Order No.15-Raj/88 dated 29-2-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi.2. The issue for determination in the present appeal is the classification, under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, of "Air Buffers" imported by the appellants in or about January, 1985. The Customs authority at Jaipur classified the goods under Heading No. 40.05/16(1) of the Schedule and under Item No. 16A (4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs. A refund claim on the basis that the goods were classifiable under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Schedule was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 17-7-1985. In appeal, the appellants pleaded for classification of the goods under Heading 84.45/48 as parts of stone-working machinery, or alternatively under Heading 40.05/16. The appeal did not meet with success and hence the instant appeal....
income-tax Officer Vs. Munak Galva Sheets Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD304(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the CIT (Appeals) holding that no tax need be deducted Under Section 195(2) on the remittances to be made to a foreign company.2. The assessee is a Ltd. Company and they had entered into a tripartite agreement with Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) (MECON) and CLECIM, a company incorporated in France on 19th September 1985. The preamble of the agreement describes the assessee as the purchaser, MECON as the principal contractor and CLECIM as foreign contractor. The assessee had an obligation for establishing a continuous galvanising line of 35,000 tonnes per year. MECON and CLECIM were to design and supply the technology developed in France which is the exclusive property of CLECIM. MECON and CLECIM would provide plant, design and engineering services. They would manufacture, deliver and supervise the erection and commissioning and conduct performance guarantee test on the plant. CLECIM would be responsible for...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepchand and Family
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR632(Delhi)
1. We have herd counsel for the parties. 2. An important question which arises in this case and which is a pure question of law is this : Does the responsibility of the assessed to give necessary particulars cease after the filing of the return and does it not continue till the assessment is completed This is one aspect which arises in the present case. 3. We, thereforee, 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 was correct in law in quashing the reassessment by holding that it was barred by time ?' 4. No order as to costs. ...
Lal Chand and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT311; 1990(19)DRJ177
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) In this writ petition the claim of the petitioner is that they are migrants from Punjab and they have come from disturbed areas and they are entitled to get the benefits and other assistance from the respondents.(3) The claim of the petitioners was objected because the ration cards which were submitted by them were not accepted as being genuine. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed.(4) It appears that a similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition Nos. 272-683 of 1990 entitled 0m Parkash & Ors. v. Union of India where the Vacation Judge of the Supreme Court on 2nd July, 1990 passed the following order: The learned Additional Solicitor General points out that out of a total of 413 claimants, at present, the claim of 18 is not disputed and to them relief would be granted forthwith on the same basis as is being granted to other similar claimants. The learned Additional Solicitor General states that the claim of the remaining c...
Steel Authority of India Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC478Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants agitated two issues before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The first issue related to the valuation of the goods manufactured and cleared by them. They were charging different prices from their customers depending on the distance between the customers' premises and the factory. The Deputy Collector took the highest price charged by the appellants to the nearest customers as the assessable value in respect of all the sales on the ground that their goods were capable of being sold at that price at the factory gate. The Deputy Collector's decision was upheld by the Appellate Collector. The period related to pre-October, 1975. Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act was amended w.e.f. 01-10-1975. Section 4(a), as it existed prior to 01-10-1975, read as follows :- "Where under this Act, any article is chargeable with duty at a rate dependent on the value of the article, such value shall be deemed to be - (a) the wholesale cash price for which an...
K.N. Aggarwal Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT285
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) By this application filed under section 438 code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail against apprehended arrest for the various offences alleged to have been committed him in respect of FIR/Crime No. 1 (SIG) (S)/90 dated 25th May 1990 (2) According to the First Information Report, the date and time of occurrence is '1989 and earlier', the name of the complainant or the informant is 'official records, source information and press correspondents.'., and besides the petitioner the accused are (I )Sh.K.L. Verma, Former Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, New Delhi; (2) Sh. A.P. Nandi, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement; New Delhi; (3) Sh. Chandraswamy @ Hem Chand; (4) Mr. Larry Kolb, U.S.- National; (5) Mr. George D. Maclean, Former Md, First Trust Corporation Ltd, now settled in Canada and other public servants and private persons. It is alleged that accused persons have committed various offences bu...
Punjab Bone Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC309
1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi bearing No. 75-CE/CHG/86 dated 31-3-1986, M/s. Punjab Bone Mills have filed the present appeal.2. By his order dated 20-6-1985, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jalandhar, classified Technical Gelatin and Glue Flakes as "Other high Polymers" under Item 15A(1) of the First Schedule (hereinafter, the "CET") to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and disallowed the benefit of excise duty exemption under Notification No.234/82 dated 1-11-1982 to "Ossein", manufactured by the appellants. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification of Technical Gelatin and Glue Flakes under Item 15A(1), CET because it was based on the chemical examiner's opinion that they were in the nature of High Polymers. As regards "Ossein", the Assistant Collector's order was set aside with a direction to re-determine the issue. It is this order that is now under challenge in the instant appea...
Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC368Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Andrew Yule & Co. (the appellants herein), a manufacturer of conveyor belts, fan and Vee belts, imported a consignment of Industrial Nylon Yarn of 840 denier at the Madras port. Clearance was sought of the goods under Heading No. 5402.10 of the First Schedule (the 'Schedule' for short) to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with the benefit of the concessional rate of duty in terms of Serial No. 8 of the Customs Notification No. 38/78 dated 1-3-1978 i.e. in the residual category. It was contended that since the yarn was going to be used by them exclusively in the manufacture of belting for machinery, the yarn was not for use in the manufacture of tyres and so Entry No. 3 in the notification covering "Nylon tyre yarn" was not applicable to the goods. It appears that the appellants agreed during the hearing before the Asstt. Collector that they were not in a position to adduce any evidence to show that the yarn was in any way different from nylon tyre yarn in terms of specification...
Sanghi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT375TriDel
1. When this matter was taken up it was seen that the appellants made a miscellaneous application dated 27-5-1985 by which they sought admission of five more grounds. After hearing both sides we order as follows : (i) Ground No. (i) seeks to bring in another set of proceedings wherein the Assistant Collector passed the order on 11-1-1979 and the order-in-appeal was passed by the Collector (Appeals) on 14-3-1983. In our view considering such a ground as part of the present proceedings would not be legal and correct. We, therefore, reject the admission of this ground. (ii) Ground No. (ii) For the same reasons we also reject the admission of ground No. (ii) noting that the basic submission made in this ground is already a ground of appeal as filed. (iii) & (iv) Ground No. (iii) & (iv): Considering that grounds (iii) & (iv) are only rewording of the basic stand of the appellants as contained in the appeal we do not find it necessary, in the interests of justice to allow additi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »