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.
P.P. Patel and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC77
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of concessional assessment in terms of Notification 35/79-CE.2. The appellants manufacture branded chewing tobacco and filed a price list showing the gross price of tobacco as packed (including the cost of the packing material) and claimed the benefit of concessional assessment at the rate of 15% in terms of Notification 35/79 on the plea that the value of the branded chewing tobacco did not exceed Rs. 10 per kg. The said Notification is reproduced below:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Central Govt. hereby exempts chewing tobacco of the description specified in column (1) of the Table hereto annexed and falling under sub-item 11 (5) of Item No. 4 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises a...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Commrl. Engineers and Body
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)(54)ELT304TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (Appeals) New Delhi dated 27-10-1989.2. The learned SDR stated that in this matter, the Asstt. Collector had rejected the refund claim of the respondent as time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The respondents build bodies on chassis fitted with engines. They also manufacture 'skip loader' which has a detachable container called bucket.3. They submitted a classification list effective from 1-4-1987 and indicated buckets under sub-heading 8708.00 and the rate of duty as 20% ad valorem. The Asstt. Collector while considering the matter modified the classification list. He classified buckets under 8428.00 and indicated then rate of duty as 15% ad valorem (basic duty) on 27-7-1987.4. Pending approval of the said classification list, the respondents had removed 4 buckets under GP1 after payment of duty at the declared rate of 20% ad valorem. Subsequently they filed RT 12 returns showing this paym...
Gramphone Co. India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC96
1. The dispute relates to the eligibility of the imported goods namely, one unit BS 8000 Master and II unit Store Cassette Slave Recorders for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 315/83-Cus., dated 26-11-1983. The appellants imported a consignment of one unit BS 8000 Master and II unit Store Cassette Recorder (amplified as main machine in the Bill of Entry). The appellants claimed registration of the goods imported, under project Import Regulations for the purpose of assessment at concessional rate in terms of notification No.315/83-Cus., dated 26th Nov., 1983. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim of the appellants on the ground that the impugned goods are meant for service industry and therefore, fall outside the scope of Project Import Regulations. On appeal the Collector confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector. Hence the appeal before us.2. The Collector while rejecting the claim of the appellants observed that the function of the impugned goods is primari...
Madras Petro-chem Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC774Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 150/88 (M) passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras by which he upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras-Ill Division dated 16-12-1987 partially, confirming the classification of Liquid Paraffin I.P., Petroleum Jelly I.P. and Mineral Oil Medium under Tariff Heading 2710.99 2712.10 and 2710.99 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively, while setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellants herein by the Assistant Collector under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules. The appellants herein manufacture, among other things, liquid paraffin I.P., Petroleum Jelly IP and consequent on the introduction of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, they filed the classification list for the products. The appellants claimed classification of the items under Chapter 29 with exemption under Notification 234/86, but the department contended that the items were classifiable under Chapter 27 and after i...
Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT241
1. Vide letter dated June 12, 1988, the sole arbitrator, Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh (retired Judge, Supreme Court) had sent the award dated June 8, 1988 along with the proceedings to this Court. Notice of filing of the award was issued to all the parties and all the parties have filed objection petitions which are now being disposed of by this judgment.2. A partnership firm known as M/s. Deoki Nandan & Sons owned various immovable properties and other assets. This firm was in existence since 1967 but on death of Hanuman Prasad, the head of the family on December 8, 1972, a partnership deed dated December 25, 1972 was executed in between his sons viz., Atul Kumar Gupta (predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 5). Anil Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 1), Sushil Kumar Gupta (petitioner) and Smt. Sudha Gupta (respondent No. 6), widow of pre-deceased son Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta. The said partnership deed is Ex. P.W.1 / 1 (existing at pages 174-177 of the Arbitration file). Cls. 13 and 14 of...
Deepak Industries Ltd. Vs. National Research Development Corporation o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR185(Delhi); 43(1991)DLT34
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The plaintiff M/s. Deepak Industries Limited has filed the present petition under Sections 20 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim relief bearing I.A. No. 1740 of 1990, praying for stay of the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrators who are arrayed as defendants 2 and 3, till the disposal of the main petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. When the application for interim relief came up for final hearing before me, counsel for the parties agreed that since the pleadings in the main petition were also complete and for purposes of decision of the interim application, the same points' would be required to be gone into as for purposes of decision of the main petition, the whole matter may be disposed of. In view of this agreement between the counsel for the parties, I proceeded to hear arguments on the main petition itself. By this order I propose to dispose of the main petition which has been registered...
Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi142; 1991(2)ARBLR127(Delhi); ILR1991Delhi360
P.K. Bhari, J.(1) Vide letter dated 12/06/1988, the sole arbitrator, Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh (retired Judge,Supreme Court) had sent the award dated 8/06/1988 Along with the proceedings to this Court. Notice of filing of the award was issued to all the parties and all the parties have filed objection petitions which are now being' disposed of by this judgment.(2) A partnership firm known as M/s. Deoki Nandan &Sons; owned various immovable properties and other assets.This firm was in existence since 1967 but on death of Hanuman Prasad, the head of the family on 8/12/1972, a partnership deed dated 25/12/1972 was executed in between his sons viz., Atul Kumar Gupta (predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 5). Anil Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 1), Sushil Kumar Gupta (petitioner) and Smt. SudhaGupta (respondent No. 6), widow of pro-deceased son ShriKrishan Kumar Gupta, the said partnership deed is Ex.PW. 1/1 (existing at pages 174-177 of the Arbitration file).Clauses 13 and 14 of the par...
Audo Viso Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC23Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi dated 22-9-1988.2. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing micro-filming equipment and is an eligible Actual user (Industrial). It imported a consignment of Microfilm lenses of 50.3mm F4, 20mm F2.8, 25mm F2.8, 33mm F3 and 41mm F3.5. Bill of entry No.209852 dated 8th October 1987 was filed for clearance of the goods in question under OGL App. 6(1) of ITC Policy, 1985-88, which related to raw materials, components and consumables (non-iron and steel items) other than those included in the appendices 2,3 part A 5 and 8. The appellants had imported FIVE consignments of similar lenses, spread over three preceding licensing periods (viz.1981-82), 1982-83 and 1983-84, and cleared them under OGL from the same Custom House. During the periods of the earlier clearances the OGL was covered under Appendix 6. Except for this minor change, there was no other change whatsoeve...
RupIn Investment and Trading (P.) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)38ITD428(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's appeal arising out of its assessment for assessment year 1985 86.1 have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. No one appeared on behalf of the revenue.2. The first ground raised in this appeal is about a disallowance of Rs. 2,200 made by the assessing officer on account of payments for taxation matters. The reason given by the assessing officer was that it was a case of loss. The learned CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance for the same reason and he has tried to justify the ITO's action by taking support from some comments in the commentary of Chaturvedi and Pithisaria at page 2043. He has not reproduced the comments nor mentioned the substance thereof. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there are no such observations and I have also looked into the book and have not been able to trace any such observation.However, let me examine the reasoning given by she authorities below.They have not specifically referred to Section 80VV. But their li...
Lal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ16
Kanihal Kumar, C.J. (1) The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Railway employee who had exercised his option while still in service for switching over from the non-pensionable Contributory provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme can be denied the benefit of the said option on the ground that his continuation in service was due to the fortuitous circumstance of his having not been retired on the basis of the date as recorded in his service book. (2) The facts of the case giving rise to the present application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 are that the applicant had joined the service of the respondents as Carpenter in the year 1946. According to the applicant, his date of birth was 19th July, 1927 and the same is said to have been mentioned in various official communications as per averment in para 6.4 of the application. On the bails of the said date of birth, the applicant was due for retirement on superannuating o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »