Delhi Court August 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT597TriDel
1. The issue involved is whether the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 84/69 in respect of excess sugar manufactured by them during the period May, 1978 to July, 1978.2. The appellants manufacture Vacuum Pan Sugar falling under Tariff Item 1(I) of the. Central Excise Tariff. They manufactured Vacuum Pan Sugar and a quantity of 63185.61 quintals became eligible for the rebate sanctioned by Notification No. 108/78 dated 28th April, 1978.The appellants filed a rebate claim for Rs. 9,94,486.08 by their letter dated 17th June, 1983. On 2nd April, 1984 they revised their claim for rebate on excess sugar produced to Rs. 13,75,984.86. These claims are in addition to the sugar rebate claimed under Notification No. 108/78 in an amount of Rs. 15,88,486.08. The amount of Rs. 3,81,498.78 represent the additional duty of excise rebate claim in respect of additional duty of excise.3. The claim of the appellants for rebate of additional excise duty was rejected by the Asstt....
Shiv Shakti Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT439TriDel
1. The appellants imported 2 consignments of 232 cartons containing 60,000 gross sets declared as "Metal fittings rivets (rivets for leather goods)" and filed 2 bills of entry No. 5770 and 5771, both dated 27-12-1988 for their clearance. Declared CIF value was Rs. 1,59,1987/- in each consignment, total coming to Rs. 3,18,396/-. The Department alleged that the appellants had actually imported snap fasteners consisting of 4 pieces, i.e. top, socket, stud and post, of 3 different sizes VT2, VT3 and VT5, of "swallow-RK" brand and had split up the importation into two consignments as detailed below:-Size No.Carton No. & Bill of Entry No. and Date QuantityVT 5 1 to 25 of B/E No. 5771 dt. 27-12-1988 5000 gross sets 26 to 35 of B/E No. 5770 dt. 27-12-1988VT 3 36 to 85 of B/E No. 5771 dt. 27-12-1988 10000 gross sets 86 to 119 of B/E No. 5770 dt. 27-12-1988VT 2 120 to 194 of B/E No. 5771 dt. 27-12-1988 15000 gross sets 195 to 232 of B/E No. 5770 dt. 27-12-1988 It was alleged that the snap f...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Formica India Division
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC203Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the eligibility of the respondent for availment of proforma credit of duty paid on BOPP film used as separators in the manufacture of rigid plastic laminated sheets falling under T.I. No. 15A in terms of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules.The respondents herein manufacture rigid plastic laminates falling under T.I. 15A of the Central Excise Tariff and during the process of manufacture they use BOPP film (Biaxially Oriented Polypropelene film) falling under T.I. 15A(2) as separators. Sheets of BOPP cut to rectangular shape of suitable sizes are used to separate consecutive layers of rigid plastic laminates during the process of compression under heat and pressure. A particular film can be used repeatedly for a number of operations- before being discarded.3. The respondents were availing of proforma credit of duty paid on BOPP film and utilising the same to pay duty on the final product i.e.rigid plastic laminates. A show cause notice was is...
Maheshwari Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC138
1. These three appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issues involved are common to all the appeals.2. The appellants are composite mills, manufacture yarn and cotton fabrics. Since the rate of duty payable on such cotton fabrics was ad valorem, they were filing price lists/contracts in accordance with the provisions of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules. After the price lists were approved by the Department, the duty was being paid in accordance with the approved price lists. While so on 23-3-1977, 29-3-1977 and 14-10-1977, the respondents issued show cause notices under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules proposing to recover an amount of Rs. 1,08,030.50, Rs. 53,809.15 and Rs. 42,853.55 respectively for the period commencing from 16-3-1976 to 2-5-1977, alleging short levy of duty on the ground that the yarn duty element has not been included in the assessable value of the respective fabrics. On receipt of the reply, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. The appe...
D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD35(Delhi)
1. This appealis directed against the order dated 31-5-1985 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi (Shri A.S.Thind) and the effective ground raised is as under :- The CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding that payment of Japanese Yen 2,500,000 being engineering and management fee made to M/s. Kobe Steel Ltd., Japan, is also towards technical services rendered by the foreign party in India for repair of foundation of Synthesis Gas Compressor and the same is not exempt from tax in India as per the claim of the Company under Clause 'K' of Article X of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Japan.2. The assessee-company entered into an agreement dated 7-7-1984 with M/s. Kobe Steel Limited, Tokyo, Japan (Japanese firm) for repair of the foundations of Synthesis Gas Compressor and CO2Gas Compressor installed in Shriram Fertilisers and Chemical factory at Kota. The agreement was approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilise...
illyas Ahmed Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ6
ORDER1. The Zonal office of the Enforcement Directorate Calcutta through their secret sources received the information that on 5-3-1990 at about 2 p.m., one Illyas Ahmad, the present petitioner will be visiting one Prasenjit Nag of M/s. Uptronics Service (P) Ltd. at his office situated at 18th floor, Chatterjee International Centre 30, J.L. Nehru Road, Calcutta, for selling US 10,000/- authorisedly. On the basis of this information, the officers maintained surveillance at the office of Prasenjit Nag and apprehended the petitioner at about 2.45 p.m. On his personal search, they recorded and seized Rs. 2 lakhs along with incriminating documents. On interrogation, the petitioner disclosed the names of number of persons connected with the illegal sale and purchase of foreign currency. As a follow-up action, searches were conducted at numerous places where from material documents and foreign currency were recovered. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 7-3-1990 and was produced before the C.M....
ila Ram Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi17
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) We discern not many a knots in the strand woven by the prosecution. However, first, the prelude. In the posh locality of Saket there is a Central Market known also as Super Bazar. It comprises of twenty-six shops. Shop No. 24, however, provides the central stage. Its proprietors were Davinder Kumar Aggarwal and Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, though some times their father Gian Chand Aggarwal also used to look after the business. Hardly a few yards away from the market are residential houses and one of the occupants of one of those residential buildings is Rajpal Sharma, Advocate. Quite nearby also lives Vinod Kumar Singhal. He is the brother-in-law of Parveen Kumar Aggarwal. They are the central characters besides, of course, Lila Ram @ Liloo and Rajinder Kumar, who were arrayed by the prosecution as the accused. Allegedly their victim was Parveen Kumar Aggarwal. (2) A thumb nail sketch of the sequence of facts is necessary to get a hang of the core of the case of prosecut...
Surinder Singh Vs. V.K. JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT365; 1990(19)DRJ198
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This Civil Miscellaneous (Main) petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord who filed an petition in the court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).(2) The brief facts are as follows :- The petitioner filed an eviction petition on 13-2-1987 against the respondent. The Additional Rent Controller issued summons as provided under Section 25B(2) and 3(a) of the Act to the respondent by ordinary process as well as by registered A.D. post. The summons were served on the respondent by ordinary process on 22-3-1987 but the registered A.D. summons could not issue because of shortage of postal stamps on registered A.D. cover. The eviction petition was listed before the Additional Rent Controller on 27-5-1987 and the petitioner prayed that eviction order be passed because the respondent had not chosen to file an application for leave to defend within th...
A.V. Ashokan and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT92
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Today we have had the occasion to consider the case afresh in the light of the material which has now been placed before us.(2) We find that persons who paid the full amount after 1 5/12/1986 really fall in a single category and it will not be fair to treat them separately. Furthermore, we .find that some regard has also to be given to the seniority of the members. The Society had been registered a number of years ago and there are some very old members who had been waiting for allotment but unfortunately there was delay in making payment when the time paying the amount came. In drawing up the list of members who made the payment after 15/12/1986 we find that most of the money has been paid by the members within a period of two or three months. Merely because person who is at Seriall No. 1, for example, has paid money one week after aperson who became a member many years thereafter should not be a reason forgiving higher weightage to the date of payment. All members ...
Rasan Detergents Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT391TriDel
1. This is an appeal against order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh confirming demand of duty of Rs. 2,77,437.41 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 29-11-1984, the Central Excise Officers of Patiala Division visited the premises of the appellants and observed that during the years 1982, 1983 and 1984, the appellants had purchased Sodium Silicate from other manufacturers for use of manufacture of soap in their factory premises in addition to the Sodium Silicate manufactured and consumed captively by them. The price of Sodium Silicate purchased was higher than the assessable value of Rs. 950/- per mt declared for approval in Price List No. 242/81 effective from 1st September, 1981 on the basis of which the appellants had been paying duty during the aforesaid 3 years on the Sodium Silicate used captively. The of-ficers observed that the appellants had not filed any price list thereafter. It was th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »