Delhi Court September 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.
Union of India Vs. Jyotsna Holdings (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas503(Delhi); 1991CriLJ1426; 42(1990)DLT577; 1991RLR23
Y.K. Sabharwal (1) In this application seeking condensation of delay in filing the appeal, this court is not concerned with the merits of the case except for the limited purpose of deciding the plea of public interest put forth by the government. Briefly the facts are : (2) respondent M/s. Jyotsana Holding Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'JH') had been appointed to offer consultancy services to M/s. Somitomo Corporation, Japan (hereinafter referred to as 'SC') in the matter of supplies contemplated to be made by Sc M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission/Gas Authority of India Ltd. Two agreements dated 30th August 1984 and 5th November 1984 were executed between Jh and SC. Jh was entitled to receive consultancy fee from the SC. The agreement dated 30th August 1984, inter alia, provided that the consultant fee would be remitted in Japanese yens to the account of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (for short 'BCCI') London on account of Ellijay Consultants Incorporated (for shor...
Ambica Steel Rolling Vs. Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tri ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas239(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT605; 1991(31)ECC229; 1991(52)ELT15(Del)
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioners are manufacturing iron bars falling under Tariff Item No. 26AA (ia) of the Central Excise Tariff. On 15th April, 1978, the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Saharanpur Division, visited the factory of the petitioners and found that the petitioners had cleared 307.326 Mt of iron bars made out of steel ingots (on which duty had already been paid prior to 18-6-77) free of duty as against the duty payable at the rate of Rs. 130.00 per M.T. in terms of notification No. 152/77 dated 18.6.77 as amended by notification No. 235/77 dated 15-7-1977. A show cause notice dated 2nd April, 1979 was issued and as a result of the adjudicating proceedings the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, held that there was contravention of Rules 9(1). 173F, 173G read with 173Q and ordered that excise duty at the appropriate rate be paid on the said quantity of iron bars under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 10 and also impose...
Advance Sig Contacts and ors. Vs. National Research Development Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR142(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT608
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) Both these petitions are under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (2) An agreement was entered into between M/s. Advance Sig Contacts, a partnership firm and National Research Development Corporation of India, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24.4.1978. It is not necessary to refer to any detail as the terms of that agreement, which is styled as a 'license Agreement'. Reference may, however, be made to a recital. It is stated that the Corporation i.e. National Research Development Corporation of India was in possession of and was entitled to full rights of invention (subject matter of the agreement) by the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi. (3) In the 1st petition, there are three respondents, the first respondent being the Corporation. The second and third respondents are respectively National Physical Laboratory and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi. (4) As noted above, the license agreement is only between M/...
Ramnath Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD219(Delhi)
1. 1. to 16. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 17. The next in line in the appeal relates to the claim of 80-I deduction of the IT Act in respect of Jamna Kinara Unit. The plea raised by the counsel for the assessee submitted that it is not disputed for the assessment year under appeal that there was in reality no manufacturing done. In the year the only receipt in this unit was the subsidy in regard to the exports etc. and there was no other activity. He pleaded that the revenue has no dispute on the fact that in the immediately preceding assessment year, the assessee was held to be an industrial undertaking and claim under Section 80-I was also found allowable and allowed as such. His plea was the compliance or satisfaction of Section 80-I has to be examined in the first year of claim. He pleaded that once it is found that in the first year of claim of relief under Section 80-I, the assessee fully justifies and complies with the conditions and there...
Commandant Central Ordnance Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC113Tri(Delhi)
1. The Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Post Box No. 20, Jabalpur (MP) has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. In Column No. 3, of the Appeal Memo, the date of communication has been mentioned as 29-02-1984. The said appeal was received in the Registry on the 10th day of September 1984. In terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, an appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order, and as such the appeal had to be filed on or before 29-05-1984. Thus, there is a delay of 103 days. The appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay. Capt. R.K.S.Yadav has appeared on behalf of the appellant, he has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. Capt.Yadav has pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal and the delay may be condoned.2. Shri M.K. Sohal, Ld. JD...
R.L. Beri Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC68Tri(Delhi)
1. In all the three cases the dispute relates to valuation of old used cars imported by the appellants. Since the issue is common, these appeals are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In appeal No. 2115/89, the appellant Shri R.L. Beri had imported one Japanese origin used Toyota car 1980 Model TE Series from Los Angeles (USA) in October, 1988 and filed a Bill of Entry dated 4-10-1988. As manufacturer's price list was not available, the Assistant Collector has based his assessment on the basis of 'National Automobile Dealers Association' (NADA) price catalogue showing value at US $ 5398.00 for the same car. Trade discount of 15% was shown on the NADA catalogue price and on the discounted price total 60% (46% + 14%) depreciation was granted for the use of the car. Accordingly, the assessable value of the car was determined at Rs. 32,309/- under Rule 8(1) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. It was contended by the appellant before the lower authorities that...
Robindra Textile Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1990
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT481TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh Order dt. 30-8-1988.2. The learned counsel stated that the appellants are the owners of Car No. DEB 2337 which had been given by them for bona fide use to M/s.Ruby Woollen Mills who are engaged in the processing of man-made fabrics.3. On 5-3-1987 at 14.30 hours the said Company cleared in the aforesaid car a consignment of 15 pieces (690 metres) of processed man-made Panama suiting fabrics for delivery to M/s. Amrit Lal Subhash Chander, Amritsar under the cover of accompanying valid GPI No. 1620 dt.5-3-1987 after due payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon.4. The said consignment of 15 pieces of processed man-made Panama suiting fabrics accompanied by GPI No. 1620 dt. 5-3-1987 was transported in the said car No. DEB 2337 from the Company's grey fabrics transit godown situated near Telephone Exchange Building, outside Shastri Market, Amritsar where that consignment was offloaded from the car and transferre...
Durgapur Steel Plant Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC93
1.1 The appellant produces, amongst other goods Coks Oven Gas and Blast Furnace Gas in its steel plant and these are further used in the manufacture of steel ingots and iron and steel products in the steel plant itself.12 The learned advocate for the appellant states that the said gases are essentially required, among other things, to accelerate the chemical process to melt the products. It is, therefore, urged that the aforesaid gases are essential intermediate goods for the manufacture and/or production of steel or other products manufactured in the steel plant.1.3 By notification No. 58/75 dated 1-3-1975 the Central Govt. had exempted goods falling under T.I.68 CET from payment of whole of the excise duty leviable there-on provided such goods were used in the factory of production as intermediate goods or component parts of goods falling under the same ... later the said notification was amended by notification No. 77/75 dated 6-3-1975. Effect of the notification after ... the good...
Uco Bank Vs. Poly Fab Industries Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1990
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi352; 1990RLR529
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This is an application seeking amendment of the plaint and for adding one more defendant in the suit. The plaintiff had brought this suit for recovery of Rs. 16,83,770.59 P. against five defendants under Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the amendments sought is that the plaintiff now wants that the suit be treated as a regular suit and would like to delete the pleas taken with regard to bringing this suit within the four corners of Order xxxvII. Counsel for the defendants have no objection to allowing this amendment. (2) Another amendment sought by the plaintiff is that now Mr. A. S. Kochhar has succeeded to Mr. J. P. Vohra and is the Manager, Principal Officer and constituted attorn'ey of the plaintiff and the original suit was signed, verified and instituted on behalf of 'the plaintiff by Mr. J.P. Vohra and thus, the amended plaint be allowed to be signed, verified and instituted by Mr. A. S. Kochhar. There cannot be any objection to this particu...
Baij Nath Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1990
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT42; ILR1991Delhi577
M.L. Varma, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in confiscating-gold ornaments weighing 569 glares and in imposing a penalty of Rs. 500. The petitioner has sought the release of the said ornaments and waiver of the penalty. He has also prayed for quashing of the show cause notice, the adjudication order as well as the orders in appeal and in revision which are Annexures' D'' J'.M' and 'O' respectively to the writ petition.(2) At the relevant time the petitioner carried on sarafa business at his business premises in Partap Bazar, Vrindavan, Mathura. U.P. This is his proprietory business. It includes the purchase and sale of silver and silver ornaments and utensils. According to the petitioner he also accepts gold and silver ornaments given to him for pawning. According to him he did not carry on any business in gold and gold ornaments at the relevant time i.e. 17th of November 1972 on which da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »