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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Chander Dwievedi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC53; 1991ACJ577
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.8.89 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which it awarded an interim amount of Rs. 25,000/-on the basis of no fault liability to the claimants recoverable from the appellant2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the claimants. The principle for recovering compensation on account of no fault liability is contained in Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It came into force with effect from 1.7.89. This section increases the no fault liability to Rs. 25,000/-. from Rs. 15,000/- as provided in the previous Act. There is no dispute in the present case that the accident pertains to period prior to the coming into force of the present Act. However, we are to see the effect of the new Act in case of no fault liability. Section 144 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter X in the following words:The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything cont...
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC570Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 1 (Demand) Collector/1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad.2. The facts of case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., the appellants herein, were engaged, at the material time, in the manufacture of paints and varnishes (falling under item No. 14 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - the Schedule being referred to hereafter as "C.E.T.") and synthetic resins falling under Item No. 15A. In terms of Central Excise Notification No.201/79 dated 4-6-1979, the excise duty payable on finished products stood exempted to the extent of the duty already paid on inputs used in their manufacture provided inter alia such duty had been paid under item No. 68, CET. The procedure in this regard was that the duty paid on the inputs was allowed as a credit to be used for payment of duty on the final products. The appellants had declared Melamine and Butanol as such inputs, to be b...
A.Z. Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)(62)ELT724TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 25-7-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II. The appellants, herein, manufacture aluminium collapsible tubes falling under erstwhile T.I. 27 CET. They cleared the tubes fitted with plastic caps and discharged duty liability on tubes only and not on the tubes fitted with caps. The Department initiated proceedings against them by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 1-10-1985 for recovery of duty short paid on value of caps cleared alongwith the tubes for the period 1-10-1983 to 30-9-1985 under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and the Additional Collector, on considering their defence, confirmed the demand but confined it to the 6 months period under Section 11A holding that as there was no suppression of facts, the longer period under that Section cannot be invoked. Shri D.K. Subedar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the issue now stands settled by the Supreme Court dec...
Pure Drinks (N.D.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC119Tri(Delhi)
1. Since all the 3 appeals involve common questions, a common order is being passed. 2.1. The appellant company is manufacturing Aerated Waters. It claims that because of the nature of the product its delivery was made at the site of the customers; therefore, the appellant was maintaining a fleet of trucks with special type of rack bodies for the transportation of crates of Aerated waters. The local Central Excise staff directed the appellant to discharge the duty liability on the said Aerated waters produced and cleared by it on the basis of destination prices without deduction of equalised freight. The appellant filed a representation against it before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. That representation is reported to be still pending with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. 2.2. It is further stated that the Supreme Court of India in its judgment (December 1972) in the case of Voltas Ltd. [1977 (1) ELT J177] held that no duty was payable on p...
Friends Central Government Employees Co-operative H.B. Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: 1994RLR452
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Affidavit, when filed is not false but subsequent allotment by Dda of another flat, then deponent is not entitled to another allotment. In this application it is stated that the applicant Shri S.C. Jain should be allotted a plot because one plot has been wrongly allotted to Major General S.K. Arora The contention of the applicant is that Mr. Arora. had been allotted a flat in 1986 in Mandakini Enclave, New Delhi. This allotment had been made under the Sfs by the D.D.A. It is further alleged that Mr Arora had filed a false affidavit in this Court and had not disclosed that a flat had been allotted to him and possession handed over. (2) In reply to the application, it is not denied by Mr. Arora that he has been allotted a flat by the Dda in Mandakini Enclave in 1986. It is, however, stated that he has not sworn any false affidavit. (3) The earliest affidavit which was filed in this Court was in 1981. At that time, admittedly, Mr Arora had not been allotted any flat. N...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT310(Del)
ORDER1.By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a declaration that the Notification No. 39/89, dated 25th August, 1989 is illegal, ultra virus and bad in law and null and void and the petitioner has further sought directions to quash the impugned orders/directions dated 30th August, 1989. Further, direction is sought by the petitioner to permit the petitioners to utilise the accumulated and accrued money credit balance standing to the credit of petitioners as on 25th August, 1989 against payment of the excise duty on the finished excisable goods, i.e., vanaspati/soaps. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the petitioner is in law entitled to utilise the accrued money credit balance standing to the credit of the petitioner as on 30th August, 1989 under Notification No. 27/87 simultaneously along with money credit which accrues to the petitioner under Notifications 45/89 and 46/89, dated 11th October, 1989 and also issue of directions deemed fit in the facts and circu...
Zupiter Printery and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(34)LC7(Delhi)
Usha Mehra, J.1. Writ petitioner felt aggrieved by the administrative directions issued by the Board to the Additional Collector, Customs, consequent to which, the said Adjudicating Authority classified its item i.e., the 'outer shell' of the cigarette packet as box/container and covered the same under Tariff Item No. 17(4) of the Act.2. Petitioner company manufactures cigarette 'outer shell' of printed sheets supplied to it by M/s. Godfrey Philips India Limited a manufacturer of cigarettes. Petitioner charges the said company conversion charges only i.e., converting the printed sheets into outer shells. The outer shells had, till the presentation of the Finance Bill, 1982, been cleared under Tariff Item No. 68 which is a residuary entry. But because of the introduction of the Finance Bill, 1982, Superintendent, Central Excise, Gujarat (respondent No. 4 herein), instructed the petitioner to classify the outer shell under Tariff Entry No. 17(4). He also instructed the petitioner to obta...
Max Machinery Manufacturing (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC123Tri(Delhi)
1. Max Machinery Manufacturing (P) Ltd. has filed the above captioned two appeals being aggrieved from a common order bassed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi. Simultaneously two stay applications have also been filed. Since the issue involved is common, both the stay applicaions are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri K.G. Seth, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of :he appeals before the Collector. He stated that the orders-in-original were issued on 17th October, 1989 and 27th October, 1989 and the appellants must have received the same within a week's time. He does not know the correct date of service and being not satisfied with the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellant had filed two appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the same were presented in his office on 7th August, 1990. He pleaded that the appellant was p...
Sri Madhusudan Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1993)LC218Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals relate to common issues. The same were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are manufacturers of cellulosic spun yarn/non-cellulosic spun yarn in their factories. They cleared the goods on payment of Central Excise Duty. Special Excise Duty and Additional Duty of Excise under Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. The yarn manufactured by them was captively consumed in the same factory in the manufacture of fabrics.In the civil writ petition No. 664 of 1979 filed by M/s. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. -1981 (8) ELT 887 (Del.). Delhi High Court decided on 16-10-1980 that no duty was payable on the yarn produced by the assessee in its spinning and weaving mill and which was utilised for the purpose of weaving the fabrics manufactured by it. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Honourable High Court observed that if there was one single process of manufacture then the m...
National Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT613TriDel
1.1 A Bill of Entry No. 97 dated 8-8-1988 for the clearance of 167 bales declared to be old premutilated rags imported by the appellants was filed on behalf of the importers by their clearing agents. Out of 167 bales 122 bales were declared as old premutilated synthetic rags and the balance 45 bales were declared as old premutilated woollen rags. As per the invoice of the supplier the value declared for the goods was U.S. $ 0.35/kg. for synthetic rags and U.S. $ 0.77/kg. for woollen rags thereby declaring the total value at U.S. $ 34281.24 (Rs. 484540/-). The goods were shipped against purchase contract Nos. S.1/108/88 dated 10-2-1988 and S.1/109/88 dated 10.2.1988 with M/s. Sablok International, Bombay, who were the agents of the suppliers M/s. Fibre Products of Canada Company Ltd. The clearance of the goods was claimed under OGL 1/88-91 dated 30-3-1988 vide Appendix 6 List 8 Part II S.No. 626 of the ITC Policy AM 1988-91. The importers have declared themselves to be the actual users...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »