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.
Amar Nath Behal and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT273
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) At the outset the petitioner has moved an application for amendment of the writ petition. The said application Along with the amended writ and the annexures thereto are taken on record. (2) The prayer of the petitioner is that the flats which were allotted to the petitioners who are or were employees of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking should be allotted to them permanently on ownership basis. (3) These flats were allotted to the petitioner in Tripolia Colony. Most of the contentions which have been raised in the writ petition has already been dealt with by us in an identical case of Jagdish Prasad and others v. M.C.D and others, Cw 2899/89, which were dismissed by us on 14.3.91. (4) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some documents which had not yet been filed in the earlier writ petition of Jagdish Prasad and if now taken into consideration would show that the principles of promissory estoppel are clearly applicable. In ou...
NavIn Fluorine Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC37Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. M-1107/BD-732/85 dated 24-7-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. M/s. Navin Fluorine Industries (the appellants herein) were engaged during the material time, that is, 1-1-1981 to 28-2-1982, in the manufacture of Refrigerant Gases falling under Item No. 14H of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short) of 1944. For this purpose they used to bring into their factory from outside certain chemical inputs like carbon tetrachlorides and chloroform on which the appropriate amount of Central Excise duty under Item No. 68 had already been paid. Central Excise Notification No. 201/79 dated 4-6-1979 exempted finished goods from payment of the excise duty leviable thereon to the extent of the duty suffered under Item No. 68 CET by the inputs used in their manufacture. The exemption was subject to the procedure set out in the Appendix to the notification. Paragraph 5 of the Appendix provided that t...
Vimala Printers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT231TriDel
1. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants have been manufacturing and clearing printed boxes and cartons made from duplex boards and availing exemption given to small scale units under Notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983. On 10-10-1984 the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Trivandrum issued a show cause notice to the appellants demanding a duty of Rs. 7733.32 under Rule 9(2) on the ground that they had exceeded the limit of Rs. 6 lakhs in November, 1983 and of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in March, 1984 and had not complied with the Central Excise formalities under Rules 173B, and 173C and had not paid duty after crossing the exemption limit of clearance at Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The appellants took the plea that in respect of cartons belonging to M/s. Sea Pearl Industries, Chandiroor they had only undertaken job work of printing and punching and this did not amount to 'manufacture'. Such goods could not form part of the goods of their unit for arriving at the value of the clearance an...
Norsk Data (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC308
1. Being aggrieved with the Order S8/618/ 90-ACC, dated 7-12-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Madras, M/s. Norsk Data (India) Ltd. have filed this appeal before the Tribunal.2. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether "Software in Source Code in the form of running Computer Sheets" imported by the appellants is eligible for exemption from auxiliary duty of customs in terms of Customs Notification No. 139/90 dated 20-3-1990. The Additional Collector of Customs, Madras, by the impugned order, has held that it is not. "Paper money, printed books (including covers for printed books), periodical (including newspapers), maps, charts, plans, drawings and designs, proofs, music manuscripts and illustrations specially made for binding in books." The Addl. Collector has noted in his order that the Software is "only in sheets without any serial number and not in the form of a printed book/sheets which could be considered to compri...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kidwai Memorial Institute of
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)(34)ECC210
1. M/s. Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore, imported a consignment of Caesium Pellets, a radioactive material used in the treatment of cancer. The Customs authorities at the Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore, released the goods free of duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 163/76 read with Notification No. 279/83 and a bond obliging the importers to produce a duty-exemption certificate from the Director General, Health Services, New Delhi. On the Audit objecting to the duty free release on the ground that Caesium Pellets were consumable and were not covered by the notifications, a demand notice was issued for a sum of Rs. 62,472.46. In due course, the Assistant Collector of Customs, by order dated 15-4-1989, confirmed the demand on the ground that Caesium Pellets being inorganic chemicals falling under Heading No. 28.44 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and not fabricated equipment, were consumables, not eligible for exemption in terms of the above notification. In appeal, t...
Kanpur Bottling Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD496(Delhi)
1. These gross appeals - one by the assessee and the other by the revenue - for assessment year 1982-83 arise out of the order dated 14-8-1987, passed by CIT(Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi.2. We shall first take up the assessee's appeal. The main ground is with regard to the assessability or otherwise of a sum of Rs. 4,70,964.3. The assessee is a private limited company which closed its accounts for assessment year 1982-83 on 31-12-1981. It was a bottler of coca cola and other soft drinks. It has entered into an agreement dated 1-1-1975 with the Coca Cola Export Corpn., USA. According to clause l7 of the said agreement the assessee (the bottler) was to collect certain security deposits from the retailers against returnable bottles. Clause 17 of the aforesaid agreement read as under: The Bottler undertakes to collect from or charge to, retailers for each returnable bottle containing the Beverage and for each bottle container delivered to retailers such deposits as the Corporation may fix from...
Bonita India Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD206(Delhi)
1. In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved by the non-allowing of interest under Sections 244 and 214 of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee company had paid a total tax of Rs. 26,591 by way of advance tax and tax deducted at source. Consequent to the assessment made on August 28, 1982 at a positive income of Rs. 58,035, additional demand of Rs. 866 was raised on the assessee. This additional tax was paid by the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal against the assessment, and on the basis of the relief granted by the CIT(A), the assessed figure was a loss of Rs. 6,678. The assessee moved an application for rectification under Section 154. On the basis of this application, the finally assessed loss was Rs. 11,854. Thus the entire amount of tax, i.e., the advance tax, tax deducted at source and the additional demand raised were refunded to the assessee. The assessee by means of a letter dated September 23,1985 claimed interest under Sections 214 and 244(1A)of the Act. The Assessing O...
Vijay Kumar Mehra Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD248(Delhi)
1. The assessee, an individual has preferred this appeal and has raised the issue of jurisdiction of the assessing officer in making of the assessment on him which was modified without he being served with an order of the change of jurisdiction of the assessing authority, and that he not being served with such an order of transfer of jurisdiction, the order of assessment as framed by the assessing officer is non est in law.2. The notice dated February 12,1991, fixing the hearing of the appeal for March 11,1991 was served on the appellant and the acknowledgment of the notice having been served on the appellant is also available on our records. In the absence of any request for adjournment and the assessee not appearing to argue the appeal on the date of hearing, we have disposed of this appeal ex parte by hearing the departmental representative and considering the material that is available on our records.3. The primary contention of the appellant is that the CIT(A) has erred in not ad...
Arjun Khanchandani Vs. Meena Khanchandani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT157
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4th September, 1989 passed by Shri S.N. Dhingra, Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which the respondent wife has been granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500.00 per month from the date of the application and a sum of Rs. 2.000.00 as litigation expenses. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that what has weighed in the mind of the learned District Judge for assessment of income around Rs. 15,000.00 per month is that the petitioner is a wealth tax assessed which cannot be the basis for assessment of income of the petitioner as under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the grant of maintenance, it is the petitioner's own income which has to be the basis. (3) I have seen the trial Court's order, particularly paragraph 4, and find that the trial Court has assessed the income of the petitioner not only on the basis of the fact that he is a wealth tax assessed but other factors...
Morarjee Goculdas Spg. and Wvg. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT454TriDel
1. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-1.1 The appellant company manufactures, inter alia, cotton yarn falling under Item 18A CET (as it stood at that time). The Superintendent of the Range issued a show cause notice to the company on 22-2-1980 alleging therein that the company failed to pay excise duty in respect of 3,16,689 Kgs. of cotton yarn manufactured by them which did not go into weaving of fabrics during the period from 1-12-1977 to 31-12-1979. The duty was worked out by the department on the basis of count of the yarn 115s, the highest count of yarn manufactured by the company during the aforesaid period.The company, however, contended that the said quantity of yarn being cotton waste yarn was fully exempted under Notification No. 95/61-C.E., dated 1-4-1961. They also stated that till about 5th December, 1979 the department had been extending to the said cotton waste yarn the benefit of the said notification. However, on or about 5th December, 1979 the Supdt. addressed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »