Delhi Court July 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.
Mohd. Jamil Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC52
ORDERArun B. Saharya, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof to quash and order dated 17th of August 1990 made by Shri Mahendra Prasad, specially empowered officer of the Central Government, for his detention under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view of preventing him from smuggling goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods.2. The grounds of detention together with relied upon documents were served upon the petitioner along with the order of his detention.3. The detention order has been challenged on various grounds. It is, however, unnecessary to enumerate the same as learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only one of them at the time of hearing.4. He has contended that the detention order should be set aside as so...
Veena Organic (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1991
Reported in: (1993)(64)ELT268TriDel
1. This is an application for rectification of mistake purported to have arisen in the Final Order No. 86/ 91-C, dated 31-1-1991 [1992 (59) E.L.T. 87 (Tri.)] in the following circumstances.2. The assessee manufactures paracetamol falling under sub-heading 2942.00 CET 1985 and the product is exempt from the whole of excise duty in terms of Notification 31/88 dated 1-3-1988. Upon amendment of the Drugs Price (Control) Order, 1989, this product was deleted from the First Schedule and inserted in the Second Schedule w.e.f. 18-1-1989 and was leviable to duty of excise at the rate of 5% ad valorem. For the goods cleared between 18-1-1989 to 20-3-1989 duty of Rs. 97873.70 was demanded by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad.On appeal the Tribunal in its order (supra) set aside the demand from 18-1-1989 to 24-1-1989, upholding duty liability only from 25-1-1989, the date on which the official gazette publishing Notification No.31/88 was made available to the public for sale. ...
Shri Brij Mohan and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC217Tri(Delhi)
1. These four appeals arise out of a common order and hence being heard and are disposed of by this common order.Acting on information one Shri Tilak Raj and other appellants were intercepted at about 8.00 P.M. on 25.3.1983 while alighting from the train at Amritsar. They were searched and various quantities of silver were found concealed by them in waslis around their waists. Their statements were recorded and investigations were taken up. Show cause notice dated 7.10.1983 was issued to all of them and adjudication that followed resulted in the impugned order dated 10.1.985 under which the seized silver was ordered to be confiscated and penalties were imposed.Aggrieved by this order the appellants preferred appeals to this Tribunal which were disposed of by order No. A/100-113/88-NRB dated 23.3.1988, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication as the Bench was of the opinion that the adjudication had not been fairly conducted. After the order of t...
East West Exporters Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)(39)ECC63
1. M/s. East West Exporters, 157, St. Patricks Complex, Brigade Road, Bangalore-25, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. East West Exporters, Bangalore, had imported Max HD-3R Staplers (Industrial use packaging machine). The same was assessed duty under Heading 84.51/55(1) CTA and under 33(D) CET. The appellant had claimed the assessment before the Assistant Collector under Heading 84.32 with additional duty under Tariff Item 68. The appellant had claimed assessment under this Heading on the basis of appellate decision in C3/514/83 dated 26th March, 1983 passed by the Collector (Appeals) and subsequent assessment of the identical consignments. A notice dated 25th October, 1983 was issued to the appellants to explain their case intimating that the proposal of the Revenue for assessing the stapler type HD-3R under Heading 84.51/55(1) with additional duty under Item 33(D) CET. In...
Babu Ram Ram Nath (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD439(Delhi)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ghaziabad, for assessment year 1982-83. As common issues are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order, for the sake of convenience.2. We shall first take up the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1811 (Delhi) of 1988. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-HUF consisted of the following members :- During the scrutiny of accounts of the assessee-HUF for assessment year 1982-83 the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed total partition of joint family property which consisted of the following :- 3. During the course of the enquiries conducted by the assessing officer for determining whether total partition had taken place on 7-1-1982 as claimed by the assessee or not, he was informed that the house property No. 216, Kishan Ganj had gone to the share of Shri Vinod Kumar, that 5 shops at Pilakhu...
itec (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC220Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are the manufacturers of Cinematograph projectors and parts thereof falling under Tariff Item 37B of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.1.1 The appellants sell their products either to M/s. International Talkie Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s.International) or to other buyers. M/s. International, however, are their major buyers. When the appellants sell the goods directly to other buyers, invoices are issued by the appellants charging the prices at which M/s. International sell the said excisable goods to such independent buyers. However, for such direct sale to other buyers the appellants issue Credit Notes to the extent of price differential between their selling price to M/s. International and the invoice price charged by the appellants from such other buyers. The prices at which M/s. International sell the goods to such other buyers (independent buyers) are the pri...
Collector of Customs Vs. Keltron Component Complex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC161Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Customs, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Keltron Component Complex Ltd., Cannanore had imported automatic stitcher and winder which were used for the manufacture of electrolytic capacitors assessable at the rate of 30% + 5% under notification No. 118/80-Cus vide bill of entry No. D1380/27th August, 1982. The respondents had claimed the benefit of notification No. 118/80-Cus dated 19th June, 1980 vide serial No. 29.The Assistant Collector in his order observed that invoice No. 82/1224 dated 22nd April, 1982 showed that separate value was charged for stitching machine, winding machine and spare parts and accessories and as such, it could not be construed to be a complete unit for according the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of notification No.118/80-Cus and had rejected the claim.2. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the respon...
Emm Libbas (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD560(Delhi)
1. Four cross appeals - two by the assessee and two by the revenue for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and one cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and export of ready-made garments. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84 the Income-tax Officer noticed payment; to M/s Ashok Embroidery and M/s U pkar Garments amounting to Rs. 66,729 and Rs. 25,639 respectively. Assessee produced bills in support of the claim of the expenditure in respect of M/s Ashok Embroidery. A confirmation letter was also furnished.However, in the case of M/s Upkar Garments, assessee could not file any confirmation letter. The Assessing Officer made inquiries in respect of these two concerns and it was found that no such concern existed at the given address. Enquiries were also made from the Uni...
Alcatel India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC225Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The said appeal was received in the registry on 26th day of February 1991. An application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit has also been filed. Shri A.N. Haksar who has appeared on behalf of the appellants pleaded that the appellants' company affairs were looked after by Shri Atul Thapar, Finance Controller-cum-Company Secretary and he was suffering from cancer of maxillaryantrum and paranasal sinuses and had been undergoing treatment in England. He left for England on 2.10.1990 and returned to India on 30.10.1990. Thereafter, he was undergoing Chemotherapy at AIMS and Batra Hospital. Shri Haksar added that the appellants had filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court vide C.W. No. 360 of 1990 and the writ petition was presented on 21.1.1990 though the limitation had already expired on 24th December, 1990. Shri Haksar pleaded tha...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Delhi Coal Suppliers Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT183; [1992]86STC457(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi, has, under section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, referred one question of law to this Court in respect of the assessment year 1963-64. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the dealer is carrying on the business of coal, coke, etc. Initially assessment for the said period was made on 28th March, 1964 and an additional demand of Rs. 3,078.07 was created. Subsequently a notice under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as then extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, was issued on 13th March, 1968, proposing to revise suo motu the said assessment, on the ground that a portion of turnover had escaped assessment. The dealer raised objection that the notice was too short and it was vague as it did not indicate precisely what portion of the dealer's turnover had escaped assessment. It was also contended that the proper course was to proceed, under section 11A and not under section 20(3) if the turnover...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »