Delhi Court August 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.
Variety Book Depot Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC392Tri(Delhi)
1. The classification under the Customs Tariff of the publication titled "Our Baby's First Seven Years" is the subject-matter in dispute in this appeal.2. The appellants herein imported a consignment of 35 post-parcels of the above-mentioned publication and sought clearance of goods free of duty under Head-ing 49.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as 'printed books' against an Import Licence valid for "books & teaching aids" in terms of Para 134 of the Import & Export Policy 1985-88. The Addl.Collector of Customs, by Order dtd. 04-04-1989, held that the publication cannot be treated as books for children, falling within Para 134 of the Import & Export Policy and, therefore, held that the importation was in contravention of Import Trade Control restrictions and prohibitions imposed under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and confiscated the import with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine. The Additional Collector did not enter into the arena of merits of class...
Ceat Tyres of India Ltd Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT108TriDel
1. At the outset, Shri Ram, the ld. Advocate submitted that in some of these 14 appeals, the appellants had made requests for change of title from the existing "M/s. Ceat Tyres of India Ltd." to "Ceat Ltd.". He has filed miscellaneous applications today seeking this change in all the appeals. This change was allowed even in earlier appeals filed by the appellants. The ld. Advocate also filed a copy of the fresh certificate of incorporation consequent on change of name, in support of the prayer for change of title. Smt. Baliga did not oppose the change of title. The Bench ordered that the name of the appellants in these appeals be changed to "Ceat Ltd.", as prayed for.2. We, then took up the 14 appeals and heard both sides. These 14 appeals (with the exception of Appeal No. 2123/88A) have common issues.The issues relate to the inclusion of landing charges in the CIF value of the imported goods for purposes of assessment of customs duty. In appeal No. 2123/ 88-A, there is, in addition t...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Associated Strips Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT490TriDel
(i) Whether the 'Steel welded stepped tubular electric poles' manufactured by the appellants fall under Tariff Item (T.I.) 26AA or T.1.68 of the Central Excise Tariff as it stood on 9th November, 1982. (ii) If it fell under T.I. 68, whether the demand of duty of Rs. 16,21,846.98 (BED) plus Rs. 12,394.85 (SED) for the period 1-4-1979 to 8-11-1982 is liable to be paid by the respondents demanded against the show cause notice dated 18-12-1982.2. In order to appreciate the above two questions certain facts are set out as below :- 2.1. The respondents had declared, inter alia, manufacture of "Stepped pipes and Tubes (Tubular Poles) welded in three sections after requisite jobbing" and claimed exemption under Notification 69/73-C.E., dated 1-3-1973 by filing a declaration under Notification 111/78, dated 9-5-1978. The department alleged on the basis of process of manufacture commercial parlance and incorrect declaration that there has been evasion of duty in the instant case. The goods were...
Mohta Ispat Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD264(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee for assessment year 1982-83. The sum and substance of the two grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal is that interest Under Section 216 was not leviable. In course of framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer in the end after computing the income wrote : "Charge interest Under Sections 215/217 and 216". The interest Under Section 216 as such came to be charged. When it was challenged before the CIT (Appeals), he confirmed the action of the IAC (Assessment).2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that indentical issue had been before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1981-82 and he made available a copy of the said order in ITA No.1330/Del/85 dated 25-9-1987. He submitted at length that though the issue is covered against the Revenue as per said order he would not be satisfied unless he substantiates denovo the assessee's claim both on facts and in law. He submitted that the levy of interest Under...
M/S. Cucusan Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi556
ORDER1. This petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') raises a question as to the procedure required to be followed by a Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint, alleging commission of an offence. 2. A brief narrative of the facts would facilitate having a proper perspective of the issue involved. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act (for short 'the Company'). A complaint was filed by the Company's authorised representative under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that M/s. Modern Packers, arraigned as accused No. 1 in the complaint, was a proprietory concern of Ch. Ram Singh, shown as accused No. 2, and that a cheque was issued in the name of accused No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 32,666.50 on 15th June 1989 duly signed by accused No. 2 towards payment of the price of goods but on presentment the said cheque was received back with banker's endorsement : 'refer to drawer'. It was alleged that the ch...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sita Ram Arvind Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR527(Delhi)
1. As regards question No. 1, in view of our decision in CWT v. Sohan Lal Sita Ram : [1990]184ITR337(Delhi) , we dispose of this petition by consigning to the record and give liberty to the petitioner to apply for its revival if and when the value of the house in question in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, which is the base year in view of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, is revised. 2. As regards question No. 2, the same pertains to the valuation of the shares which had been quoted on the Bombay Stock Exchange. The assessment file of the assessed having been transferred to Delhi, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) took note of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular and following the same came to the conclusion that as the distance between Bombay and Delhi was less than the distance between Calcutta and Delhi, thereforee, the value quoted at the Bombay Stock Exchange should be adopted. This plea was accepted by the Tribunal also. In our opinion, the question as to ...
Tarlochan Singh Sarna Vs. Mahinderpal Singh Bindra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR332(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT470; ILR1990Delhi119b; 1990RLR450
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Mr. Tarlochan Singh Sarna, the sole arbitrator, had filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Along with the same he submitted the award dated September 5. 1988. and the proceedings recorded by him. 'The notice of the filing of the award was given to all the parties but no objections had been filed to the award. It was brought to the notice of the learned, counsel for the parties Mr. G. S. Vohra that perhaps the award. was required to be registered 'compulsorily and he was required, to address the arguments on this point. I have heard him in detail. In order to appreciate 'this. point, it is necessary to refer to the facts.'(2) The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement wherein it was recited' tha't house No. 10/57, Punjabi Bagh. New Delhi, was owned by Snil. Mohinder Kaur Bindra. the mother of the parties, who died on July 13. 1985. and thus the said house had devolved in equal shares on all the parties and as there had arisen some disp...
Keshav Chander Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ744
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) This is a petition u/S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code . for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner u/Ss. 279/337, Indian Penal Code . (2) On 23.10.79, on the statement of one Sanjay Sehgal, an Fir No. 915/79, u/S. 279/337 Indian Penal Code . was registered at P.S. Roshnara Road, against the petitioner. After investigation, the Police submitted its report u/S. 173 Cr. P.C. praying for the cancellation of the case. In fact, the Investigating agency recommended for the registration of a case u/S. 182 Indian Penal Code . against the complainant Sanjay Sehgal. For sufficiently long time, no action on this recommendation was taken by the court. (3) ON'17.12.79, Shri Mahinder Lal, father of the said Sanjay Sehgal, filed a private complaint against the petitioner regarding the same incident. The M.M. prima facie found that the case is made put and summoned the petitioner as an accused on 27.9.80. It appears that the M.M. did not accept the cancellation ...
Cucusan Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: II(1992)BC76; 1991CriLJ683; 1990RLR460
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This petition filed under Section 482 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') raises a question as to the procedure required to be followed by a Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint, alleging commission of an offence. (2) A brief narrative of the facts would facilitate having a proper perspective of the issue involved. The petitioner is company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (for short the Company'). A complaint was filed by the Company's authorised representative under Section 138 cf the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that M/s. Modern Packers, arraigned as accused No. I in the complaint, was a proprietary concern of Ch. Ram Singh, shown as accused No. 2, and that a cheque was issued in the name of accused No. 1 for a sum of Rs-32,666.50 on 15th June 1989 duly signed by accused No. 2 towards payment of the price of goods but on presentment the said cheque was received back with banker's endorsement 'refer to drawer'. It w...
P. Moideen Kutty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(33)LC67(Delhi)
ORDERM.K. Chawla, J.1. The petitioner Shri P. Moideen Kutty, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction against the order of his detention dated 13.6.1989 under Section 3(1)(i), and his continued detention under declaration No. 200/89 dated 23.8.1989 issued by the Addl. Secretary, to the Government of India, New Delhi, Under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act).2. The petitioner was detained and kept an custody in the Central Prison, Trivandrum on 4th August, 1989, with a view to preventing him from smuggling gold. This followed an incident where the Customs Intelligence Officers of the State of Kerala intercepted the petitioner at Trivandrum Airport and from his possession, 7 yellow coloured discs with hole in the centr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »