Delhi Court May 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.
Chemicoat Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC13
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda :- (a) demanding Central Excise duty Of Rs. 49,87,319.90 on metallised/lacquered PVC films manufactured and removed by the appellants during the period from 15-4-1983 to 2-1-1986 without possessing/obtaining Central Excise licence, without complying with the prescribed procedure and without payment of duty; (b) imposing a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1) for contravention of Rule 174 read with Section 6 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Rules 173C, 173F, read with Rule 9(1), 173G(2) read with Rule 52A and Rule 173 6(4) read with Rule 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944; and (c) ordering confiscation of plant and machinery etc., belonging to the appellants and used in the manufacture, production storage and removal of the offending goods under Clause (a) to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 173Q and permitting redemption of the aforesaid plant and machinery on payment ...
Sita World Travel (i)(P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD383(Delhi)
1. These are three appeals by the assessee involving common issues relating to the manner of computation of the chargeable profits for sur-tax purposes.2. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had taken up the paid up capital, investment allowance reserve and general reserve at the starting point and arrived at the figure of Rs. 44,81,560 for assessment year 1980-81. Similarly, he has worked out for other years. From the amount of total paid up capital and general reserves he had deducted the investments made in U.P. Hotels & Restaurants Ltd., SITA Exports and N.S .Cs. While arriving at the net balance, 15% was treated as the paid up capital which was deducted for arriving at the chargeable profits. The primary objection of the Counsel for the assessee was with relevance to treating the shares held by the assessee in U.P. Hotels & Restaurants Ltd. as its investments, disregarding the fact that the assessee was only acting on trust in holding those s...
Sher Singh and ors. Vs. Gaon Sabha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT713
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22.2.1986 of Mr. GS. Dakha, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Lac No. 257 of 1984 on a reference made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, by the Land Acquisition Collector. By the impugned judgment the learned Additional District Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to the compensation of the subject land acquired under the aforesaid Act and award given, (2) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts lie in a very narrow compass. The land in question came to be vested in the Gaon Sabha of Village Tekh and by notification under Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (.for short'Act') In that the revenue records it was described as 'gair mumkin pahar'. The appellants are some of the original owners of the land and some the vendees thereof. On coming to know of the vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha the owners filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, on 22.11.1967 f...
Chiranji Lal and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi325
(1) This is a suit seeking partition of property No. B-4/72, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, for separating the half share of the plaintiffs by metes and bounds.(2) Plaintiff No. I is the father of defendants 1 & 3 while plaintiff No. 2 is the second wife of plaintiff No: I while defendants 1 & 3 were born from the first wife of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No 2 is the wife of defendant No. I Plot No. 72 Block No. B-4 of Safdarjung Residential Scheme measuring 397.7 Sq. Yards was acquired by way of perpetual lease from the President of India in the names of plaintiff No. 2, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3. The possession was obtained in the year 1968. Lease deed was executed on February 21, 1971. The plot was acquired for a consideration of Rs.54,200.00 . It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No 1 is the real owner of half share in the said lease hold rights of the plot and he has acquired that share Bunami in the name of his wife plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 1, in ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kanji Mal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT22
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi has referred for the opinion of this Court on following two questions : (I)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that 'jewellery' and 'orname (2) The assessed is M/s Kanji Mal & Sons and the assessment year is 1969-70. The controversy pertains to the interpretation of the term 'ornaments'. as mentioned in Notification No. F. 4(87)/44-Fin. (E) (ii) dated 30.6.1966 issued by the Chief Commissioner under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 194 as extended to Delhi whereby gold ornaments were made excisable to sales tax at the rate of 2%. (3) The Assessing Authority came to the conclusion that this term 'ornaments' has reference to those made of gold only. In case any stones, precious or otherwise are studded in ornaments, they, it was observed, can be treated as 'jewellery' and not 'ornaments'. In doing so, the Assessing Authority relied upon its earlier dec...
Lohia Starlinger Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC249Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic extruder machines. They imported 4 pieces flat die with profiled lip, each weighing 590 kgs for use as components of plastic extruders. They claimed assessment of the goods under Heading No. 84.59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act read with Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68 as component parts of machinery having individual function (plastic extruder) @ 40% + 25% + C.V. duty @ 10%. However, the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 21-11-1984 held the goods as classifiable under Heading No. 82.05(1) read with Central Excise Tariff Item No. 51A @ 60% + 40% + C.V. duty @ 15% + 5%. The goods were cleared by the appellants against Bill of Entry No. D.I. 1087 dated 28/29-12-1984. The appeal filed against the order passed by the Assistant Collector was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds that plastic extruders were machine tools classifiable under Heading 84.59 in terms of Note 5 of Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff, and...
Chandras' Chemical Industries Vs. Collector Of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT110TriDel
1. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants have been manufacturing Dencol, an adhesive since 1977, and have been paying duty on it under Item 15A(l)(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff after approval of their Classification Lists. As a result of the visit of an Audit Party to the appellants' premises, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise issued a Show Cause Notice on 31.7.1982 to the appellants asking them to show cause why duty of Rs. 79,640/- (basic) and Rs. 3982/- (special) should not be realised under Section 11A on the ground that in the manufacture of the adhesive, an intermediate product - Polymer - had been formed which was liable to duty under Item 1SA(1) (ii) at the point of its clearance for use as input in the manufacture of the adhesive. While the proceedings in that matter were in progress, the appellants on learning that FEVICOL, an adhesive manufactured by their competitors, M/s. Pidilite Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, was being assessed to duty under...
Pioma Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC445Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute relates to the classification of 'RSDC' (Rasna) and the jurisdiction of Collector to issue the show cause notice dated 17th June, 1987.2. The relevant facts are as follows. The appellants manufacture Rasna Soft-drink concentrates (for short 'RSDC')- Before the new Tariff was brought into force, a show cause notice dated 13th September, 1985 was issued by the Assistant Collector proposing to classify the product under Tariff Item 68 and proposing to levy duty. Since the appellants were of the view that the product is classifiable under Tariff Item 1B and consequently, eligible for exemption under Notification No. 17/70, dated 1st May, 1970, they challenged the show cause notice in the High Court of Gujarat which was disposed off without considering the merits directing the appellants to pursue the appellate remedies available under the Act. It appears that the said proceedings are still pending.Meanwhile, the department issued two letters dated 20th February, 1986 and 25...
Har NaraIn Vs. Budh Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ94
Aran Kumar, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judg- ment dated 30th October i975 of a!ea.-aed Single Judge of this Court in F.A.O.No.4ofl969. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge accepted the appeal of the respondent herein against the judgment of the trial court. The trial court had vide its judgment dated 4-11-1968 allowed the petition under Section 278 of (he Indian Succession Act and granted Setters of administration is favor of the pelitianer (appellant herein).(2) The facts in the present appeal are that the appellant filed a peti- corporation under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of letters of administration with respect to the Will dated 15th May 1964, Ex. P-l. The Will was made by Mahant NarSingh Dass, Chela ofMahantParshotam Dais, whereby the testator bequeathed all his movable and immovable property in favor of the appellant Har Narain and the respondent Budh Ram in the ratio of half and half each with a rider that if Budh Ra...
K.C. Shukla Vs. Indian Airlines and ors. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1991
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi29
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner is a Commander In the Indian Airlines, the first respondent. He is aggrieved by the action of the first respondent in not appointing him to the next higher post of the Deputy Operations Manager and rather appointing respondent 2 to 22 who are junior to him to this post by order No. 34/90 dated 10-4-1990. The petitioner.therefore, seeks, quashing of this promotion order and further seeks a direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Deputy Operations Manager retrospectively w.e.f. 1/02/1990. He also seeks certain other directions connected with this.(2) First respondent is a body corporate constituted under the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act') and its affairs are governed by the Board of Directors as mentioned in sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Under section 44 of the Act,the Central Government has power to make rules to give effect to the provisions of the Act and under section 45 the first respondent has bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »