Delhi Court January 1991 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sonali Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT164TriDel
1. When the cases were called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. We find that the Respondents have requested for decision on merits on the basis of available records. Accordingly, the learned Departmental Representative for the revenue and the Appellant were heard.2. A common order is being passed in all the five appeals because common issues are involved.3. Brief facts of the cases are that, the Respondents are receiving the fabrics from M/s. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd. cut to size of the bed covers, bed sheets and pillows. The Respondents, thereafter, carry out the remaining part of the work, i.e. stitching, hemming and affixing the brand name of M/s. Bombay Dyeing on the goods and then, subsequently packing on the basis of job charges received by them from M/s. Bombay Dyeing. Question that is involved herein in all the matters is, whether, the Respondents are entitled to draw the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 (as amended). The findi...
Albert David Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC242
1. The dispute in this appeal concerns the levy of basic customs duty under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ("the Schedule", for short) on a consignment of Polyethylene Moulding Grade (Lupolen 3020 D). The goods were assessed under Heading 39.01/06 of the Schedule at the rate of 100% ad valorem plus the applicable auxiliary duty of customs and additional duty of customs. After clearance of the goods, the appellants filed a claim for refund based on the ground that the goods attracted the concessional rate of duty applicable to low density polyethylene in accordance with Customs Notification No. 235/85 dated 29-7-1985. The lower authorities dismissed the claim on the ground that, in accordance with technical literature, the goods would be classifiable not as low density but as medium density polyethylene since its density was, according to the manufacturer's catalogue, 0.926 - 0.929, whereas, in accordance with the Encyclopaedia of Polymer Science and Technology, Vol...
Akola Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC144Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, confirmed a demand amounting to Rs. 9,41,179.95 against the appellants under Section HA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with the proviso thereto.2. A brief background will help to better understand the case. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati or Vegetable Product. During February and March, 1984, they availed themselves of duty exemption to the tune of Rs. 9,41,179.95 , on Vegetable Product manufactured from a mixture of indigenous rice-bran oil of edible grade and other oils, in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 259/83 dated 15-10-1983 without, however, giving a notice to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise in writing within one month of the publication of the notification as required therein. It appears that the appellants sent a letter to the Assistant Collector conveying their intention to avail themselves of the benefit of the notification, on 14-11-83 which was, ...
Vinod Tayal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)36ITD625(Delhi)
1 to 3. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 4. The only controversy that survives in this appeal is about the assessee's claim for the carry forward of loss and depreciation determined for the year under consideration for adjustment in later year. The facts are that in pursuance of a notice issued under Section 148 the assessee filed a return declaring a loss and the loss was ultimately determined at Rs. 1,36,927 which included depreciation for the year under consideration allowed at Rs. 96,930. The Assessing Officer ordered that since the return has not been filed under Section 139, the loss would not be allowed to be carried forward. In the assessment proceedings the assessee had contended that he had earlier filed a return under Section 139, but this contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as there was no evidence to support it.5. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals) who has upheld the ITO's finding that there was no evidence of any...
Bank of India Vs. Technocrat Chemicals and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas664(Delhi)
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff bank under Order 40, rule 1, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) to appoint a receiver to take possession and control of the hypothecated plant and machinery owned by defendant No. 1, detailed in annexure A and lying at Plot No. 27, Gurgaon Industrial Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana, as well as the book debts of the defendant. The application also seeks an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from parting with the aforesaid plant and machinery or from selling the stock, raw materials, finished goods, etc. It is alleged in this application that the plaintiff-bank has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,15,706.30 outstanding under the term-loan facility against hypothecation of plant and machinery, together with pending and future interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests. The plaintiff also seeks a declaration that there is a valid and subsisting charge in fav...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Del)169; 43(1991)DLT363; ILR1991Delhi260; (1991)189ITR81
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The challenge in this writ petitions to a notice issued under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act to the petitioner whereby the Commissioner of Income-tax seeks to withdraw the deduction which was allowed under section 43B of the Income-tax Act. 2. In respect of the assessment year 1985-86, the petitioner had claimed in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the Income-tax Officer ought not to have included in its income the amounts collect by the petitioner by way of sales tax and disallowed the amount payable to the sales tax authorities by the petitioner. At that time, the Commissioner of Income-tax followed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srikakollu Subba Rao v. Union of India : [1988]173ITR708(AP) and held that, as there was no contrary decision of the Delhi High Court, he was bound by the observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and he directed that the amount of sales tax which was payable though not actually paid should...
Bank of India Vs. Technocrat Chemicals and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT550
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This application has been filed by the plaintiff bank under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) to appoint a Receiver to take possession and control of the hypothecated plant and machinery owned by defendant No. 1, detailed in Annexure A and lying at plot No. 27, Gurgaon Industrial Estate, Gurgaon Haryana as well as the book debt of the defendant. The application also seeks interim injunction to restrain the defendant from parting with the aforesaid plant and machinery or from selling the stock and raw materials and finished goods etc. It is alleged in this application that -the plaintiff bank has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,15,706/30 p. outstanding under term loan facility against hypothecation of Plant and Machinery, together with pending and future interest at the rate of 13.5^ per annum with quarterly rests. The plaintiff also seeks declaration that there is a valid and subsisting charge in favor of the pla...
Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT376; [1991]83STC485(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 10th August, 1989 where by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and did not take on record the Sti forms which were sought to be submitted. (3) In respect of assessment year 1982-83, the petitioner claimed that sales had been made by it to registered dealers against Sti forms. The assessment was completed in 1987 but the Sti forms were not produced. The petitioner then filed a revision petition challenging the amount of tax of Rs. 3,83,934.00 which was levied. The petitioner sought an opportunity to produce the St I forms but by the impugned order it was held that the St I forms are dated 1985 and the assessment was completed in 1987 and, thereforee, there is no reason as to why the said forms should not have been produced earlier. (4) It is contended that though Sti forms had the date of 198 5 but they were physically not handed over to the petiti...
Prem Nath Gupta and anr. Vs. Kamal Kriplani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT69
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The appellants who are owners and landlords of house no. 55 Masjid Moth Extension New Delhi obtained permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) to let out the first floor of the said house to the respondent by way of an application dated 16th February, 1978. It was stated in the said application that the appellants who were living on the ground floor did not require the first floor for their use for a period of three years because their son was posted outside Delhi and was expected to come back after three years when the first floor would be required. Along with the application, the appellants filed the proposed lease deed setting out the terms and conditions which specifically stated that the letting purpose was purely residential. The parties appeared before the Additional Rent Controller on 17.2.1978 and made their respective sta...
Collector of Customs Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC229
1. Only one appeal has been filed by the Department, although the impugned order disposes of two appeals by a common order. The appeal before us is, therefore, confined to Order No. GII/78/87 (issued from F. No. CL/PL/BDMC/RIII/86/7094 dated 23-9-1987) passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Bombay-I, Collectorate.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of account books and other registers, canteen coupons/booklets, cyclostyled circulars and letters on duplicating machines. The respondents had filed a Classificatin List No. ST-1/86-87 effective from 1-3-1986 for these products, claiming assessment under Heading 4901.90 as products of printing industry etc., attracting nil duty. The Assistant Collector issued a notice asking them to show cause why these products should not be classified under sub-heading 4818.90. The respondents claimed that their products were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 before the introduction of the new...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »