Delhi Court March 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.
Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Del)261
C. M. NAYAR, J. :The present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is filed mainly to impugn the action of the respondents contained the letter dt. 28th December, 1981 Wherein representation of the petitioner No. 1 was rejected with regard to the companys contributions to the perquisites such as provident fund, superannuation benefits and gratuity relatable to salary plus commission. It was contended that petitioner No. 2 was already recipient of a salary of Rs. 6,000 p.m. prior to his becoming Manager under the Companies Act, he should not be denied benefits of provident fund, etc., on the said salary although it had been split up by the Government as salary and commission. The respondents stated that the said benefits are relatable to salary only and not salary plus commission.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company is an existing public limited company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred as Act carrying on business of...
Jayshree Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC113Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture liquid chlorine in their factory in Ganjam (Orissa) and which, after being fully manufactured, is stored in storage tanks before its removal. Such chlorine in gaseous form is also sold by means of a pipeline to M/s. Chlorinators India Ltd., which is a factory situated adjacent to the appellants' factory. Liquid Chlorine is supplied in cylinders and, in some cases, such cylinders are provided by the customers. The cylinders supplied by the appellants are durable in nature and are returnable by the customers.2. A dispute has arisen about the expenses incurred by the appellants and described as "handling charges". These charges were not included in the assessable value and, in reply to a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector, these have been explained by the appellants to be in the nature of post-manufacturing marketing activity and include, inter alia, expenses on account of salary of staff employed for packing and filling operations, expenses...
Balvir Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT64TriDel
1. The appellant came to India by air on morning of 7-8-1985 from Los Angels and he reported along with baggage for the purpose of Customs Clearance at Red Channel and made oral declaration of goods worth Rs. 5850 including a Sony T.V. on which he was charged customs duty which he paid. Then while he was going out of Red Channel exit gate he was asked if he was carrying any gold or undeclared currency or he had anything to declare to which he replied in negative. Thereafter his baggage was diverted for detail examination. His baggage was opened and examined in the presence of two independent witnesses but nothing incriminating was recovered. But on suspicion his person was searched as a result of which US $ 6,100 were recovered from one bank account book and from the hand pouch 3 white envelopes were recovered which contained US $ 5,500/-. Moreover from the specially stitched pocket of his black colour undergarment 10 pcs. of gold coins of foreign origin weighing 31 gms. each were rec...
Pieco Electronics and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC264Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants were, during the material period, that is, from 1-1-1981 to 22-12-1985, engaged inter alia in the manufacture of non-cellulosic lacquers consisting of resin, pigments, filler and solvents. Classification of the goods was claimed under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Schedule ('CET', for short) with the benefit of duty-free captive consumption in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 118/75 dated 30-4-1975. On the basis of investigations, the department took the view that the goods were correctly classifiable under Item No. 14-I(5) CET ("Paints and enamels, not otherwise specified") and that the appellants had mis-declared the goods in the classification lists filed from time to time with a view to evade the duty payable thereon. Following a show cause notice dated 21-4-1986, covering the period from 1-1-1981 to 28-12-1985, and adjudication proceedings, the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, confirmed the demand for duty for the period of 6 month...
Shantilal Doshi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC397Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the product gummed paper, manufactured by the appellants, falling under Heading 4811.20 of the Schedule (the 'Schedule' for short) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, is eligible for the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987. The lower authorities have found againt the appellants. Hence this appeal.2. Notification No. 49/87 exempts inter alia converted types of paper falling within Chapter 48 of the Schedule, from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon provided that such converted types of paper have been produced out of base paper on which the appropriate duty of excise leviable under the Schedule or the additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, has been paid. Another condition is that the base paper has not been produced out of pulp within the factory of production of the said converted types of paper.The notification is...
Lal Chand Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)CPJ509; 1991(2)CPR581
R.N. Mittal, President:1. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant got himself registered with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 31.1.79 for a flat and deposited Rs. 10,000/- at that time as required under the Scheme.2. It is pleaded that the DDA had promised to give him a flat within 30 months from the date of registration. However, instead of providing a flat they issued a letter dated 4.8.82 to the complainant informing him about the allocation of a flat and asked him to make the payments in 5 instalments, out of which first instalment was of Rs. 51,250/- including the amount of Rs. 10,000/- already deposited-payable by 23.9.82; 2nd instalment of Rs. 41,000/-payable by 3.3.83; 3rd instalment of Rs. 51,250/-payableby 3.9.83; 4th instalment of Rs. 41,000/- payable by 3.3.84 and the 5th and final instalment of 10% of the estimated cost and difference between the cost of dwelling unit on completion and estimated cost by the date to be communicated later. It w...
Asean Trading Agency Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC707Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Asean Trading Agency, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) imported nine consignments of Glyoxal Solution 40% and filed nine Bills of Entry on 23-12-1987 for their clearance. The goods were described as "Synthetic Organic Tanning Agents/Penetrators" and Import Licence No. P/L/2955529, dated 6-5-1987 (R.E.P. Licence of D.I.4 Group, issued under Appendix 17 of the Import Policy 1985-88) was produced for their clearance. The benefit of concessional rate of duty of 40% adv. in terms of Customs Notification 224/85, dated 9-7-1985 was also claimed. The R.E.P. licence produced was found by the Customs authorities to be valid for the import of "Synthetic Organic Tanning Agents" under Serial No. P of the list attached with the licence. In response to a query, the appellants stated that Glyoxal Solution 40% could be considered as Synthetic Organic Tanning Agents and a Penetrator used in leather industry as per the Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Tenth Edition, by Gessner...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. B.R. Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC209Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad had filed the above captioned appeals being aggrieved from a common Order-in-Appeal No. 335 to 353/90/Ahd/Collr(A)/CE(l36 to 154/90/Ahd/CE), dated 31-7-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The said appeals were presented in the Registry alongwith applications for condonation of delay on 4-2-1991. In column No. 3 of the appeal memo the date of communication has been mentioned as 17-9-1990. In terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, an appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order on the appellants. Thus the last date for the filing of the appeal was on or before the 17-12-1990. Thus there is a delay of 48 days. Shri M. S. Arora, learned JDR has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has pleaded that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the appeals. He has argued that there were riots in Ahmed...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dewarance Macneill and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT645TriDel
are correctly classifiable under Item 68 or Item 22F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff; and (ii) The demand for differential duty under Item 22F and Item 68 can be demanded under Section 11A for a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice dated 20-5-1983.2. The facts of the case have been stated in the statement of facts given in the memorandum of appeal filed by the Revenue. In short, the same are as follows :- (a) The respondents filed classification list in Form I dated 25-9-1975 to the proper officer for classification of the above mentioned three products under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The classification list was approved by the proper officer and the respondents cleared the goods on payment of duty under the said Tariff Item 68. Subsequently, chemical test of the three products revealed predominance of asbestos fibres in the composition of the said goods. The Department issued a show cause notice dated 20-5-83 proposing to re-classify the...
Ashapura Minechem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC387Tri(Delhi)
1. The only question involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants were entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 329/79-Cus. dated 2-8-1976, (Sl. No. 3 and 4 of the table appended to the Notification) with respect to the subject goods, namely, mixture of Flakes and Powder.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants filed Shipping Bill No. F/80 dated 17-1-1985 for export of 688 m.t. said to be Mica Flakes to Iran from Kandla Port. However, the dispute arose between the appellants and the Customs Authorities with respect to the leviability of export duty. As the dispute could not be resolved, the appellants paid duty under protest and exported the goods.Subsequently, they filed their refund claim, claiming that the subject goods were exempted from export duty under Notification No. 329/76-Cus.dated 2-8-1976 on the ground that as the material was passing through seive of mesh size-2, the subject goods were covered by the said exemption Noti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »