Delhi Court February 1992 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.
United Group Machinery Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT746TriDel
1. Along with their appeal against the order No. 686/91, dated 20-8-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi the appellants have also filed an application for dispensing with predeposit of the penalty of Rs. 44,500/- imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1992.2. On behalf of the applicants the learned advocate Shri Raj Kumar Sarana appeared before us. He stated that the applicants had placed an order on Office Appliances Company, P.O. Box 949, Hongkong for certain components of Plain Paper Copiers which were despatched by the suppliers by air on 21st September, 1984. He added that in respect of imported spares a Bill of Entry No. 46473, dated 13-11-1984 was filed.The goods were imported against the import licence No. 2030410, dated 16-7-1982. The learned advocate pointed out that pending issue of a telegraphic release advice by Bombay Customs House against their licence an application was filed before the Assistant Collector seeking c...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Famous Cine Laboratory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT253TriDel
1. These are appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I against orders dated 19-8-1987 and 24-1-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The facts leading to these appeals are as under. The respondents herein produce what is called hypo-solution which the department sought to classify under Heading 3706 upto 1987 and under Heading 3707 after 1-3-1987. They also issued show cause notice to the respondents for having produced the goods without following Central Excise formalities and having cleared the same without payment of duty. The plea of the respondents that the goods were not dutiable as they cannot be said to be excisable goods was rejected and the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Divn. G.I., Bombay-I Collectorate passed his order dated 24-1-1990 holding that the hypo-solution manufactured out of duty-paid granules amounts to manufacture of excisable goods, answering to description under Heading 3707.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Th...
Gapp'S Industries Inc. Vs. Collector Of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT305TriDel
1. The appeal C/3578/88-D arises out of the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi dt. 22-8-1988. The appeal C/3163/90-D is against the order dt. 28-8-1990 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi. The brief facts of these appeals can be stated as follows: 2. The issue relates to valuation of consignments of Polyester Webbing and thread imported by the appellants herein whether there has been under-declaration of its value and also whether the goods Polyester Webbing is liable to additional duty besides the basic Customs duty under the Additional Duty Rules, 1976 equivalent to rate of Central Excise duty leviable on Polyester yarn. The background facts have been brought out in detail in the order of the Additional Collector which is reproduced below :- "M/s. Gapps Industries, C-65/1, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi were importing consignments of Polyester Webbing and thread at Import Air Cargo New Delhi on a regular basis. The importers were produ...
Teletronix Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD381(Delhi)
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these 4 appeals by the assessee for assessment years 1978-79,1979-80,1984-85 and 1985-86 by this consolidated order.2. For the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 assessee had not filed any returns of income within the time allowed under Section 139(1) or under Section 139(4). However, on 31st of March, 1983 returns of loss had been filed as under :-1978-79 Rs. 2,53,677.641979-80 Rs. 3,48,400.40 On 11-10-1985 assessee filed fresh returns for the two respective assessment years disclosing income as under :-1978-79 Rs. 6,0871979-80 Rs. 8,080 Tax of Rs. 2,878 and Rs. 3,818 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively had also been paid and challan attached with the returns of income. Since, the returns filed on 11th October, 1985 disclosed taxable income, the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148 on 16-5-1986 after recording reasons for the issue of such notices under Section 147(a). Assessee furnished returns in response ...
Kuldeep Singh Dhingra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi228; 47(1992)DLT375; 1992(22)DRJ528; 1992RLR208
1. I do not propose to take long. I should not, for the situation is still in a state of flux and it would be too hazardous to venture into the specifics. What is required at present is to take a prima facie view and this is precisely what I propose to do. However, first a brief resume of the facts.2. The plaintiff has been granted an Industrial Power (LT) connection for small power consumers which is being used for the purpose of manufacturing of paints being carried on by the company M / s. U. K. Paints (I) India. Only on January 8, 1992 the plaintiff in a writ petition had obtained an order staying disconnection of supply of electricity due to non-payment of the bills treating the said connection as Large Industrial Power connection. On January 10, a. large contingent of the employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter called the Undertaking) swooped on the premises and made certain inspections. Alarmed by the action, the plaintiff addressed a letter dated January 11,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR321(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67, the petitioner seek's a direction under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the effect that the Tribunal should be required to state the case and refer the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct both on facts and in law in allowing the assessed's claim of commission payment to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation, ignoring the material fact that no services had been rendered by M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation to the assessed-company ?' 2. It appears that in respect of the assessment year 1964-65, the payment made to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and that was upheld in appeals up to the Tribunal. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66 also, there was part disallowance which was upheld by the Tribunal. At the request of the assessed, the Allahabad High Court under se...
Gedore Tools (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR83(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in excluding for the purposes of relief under section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the sum of Rs. 2,19,617 and Rs. 12,549 representing the development rebate and relief under section 35 that had been allowed to the assessed in the assessment ?' 2. Briefly stated the facts as found the Tribunal are that the assessed is engaged in the manufacture and sale of land tools. It declared a net profit in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 of Rs. 39,92,472 and claimed relief under section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer made certain adjustments while arriving at the figure on which deduction under section 80 was admissible. 3. An appeal was filed by the assessed where two contentions were raised. The contention with reference to relief under section 80 was not...
The Consumer Protection Council Ahmedabad Vs. National Dairy Developme ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(23)DRJ92
Balakrishna Eradi, J.(1) This complaint petition was originally instituted before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Subsequently, it was withdrawn and taken on the file of this Commission in view of the fact that the averments in the complaint petition clearly disclosed that the valuation of the subject matter of the complaint was far in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs.(2) The complainant is the Consumer Protection Council, Ahmedabad, which is a registered Consumer Association. The first Opposite Party in the petition is the National Dairy Development Board (hereinafter referred to 'N.D.D.B.'). The second Opposite Party is the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of India, New Delhi.(3) It is stated in the complaint petition that the Ministry of Civil Supplies, Government of India had entrusted the N.D.D.B. with the task of creating a buffer stock of about five lakhs tons of edible oil in the entire country for the purpose of ensuring that there is no ...
The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Steels and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ARBLR417(Delhi); 47(1992)DLT412; 1992(22)DRJ416
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This order will dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 39 rules I and 2 read with Section 151 Cpc, being is No-6215 of 19990, for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling or offering for sale and from using in any manner whatsoever, the trade mark''TISCO' or 'FISCO' or any other mark deceptively and confusingly similar to Trade Mark Tisco of the plaintiff in relation to channels and application of defendants 2 and 5 under Order 39 rule 4 being I.A.No.8804 of 1990, for vacation of ex pane interim order dated August 8,1990 whereby the defendants were restrained from using the Trade Mark Tisco or Fisco in relation to the aforesaid product.(2) In order to appreciate the questions argued at the bar it will be necessary to set out the relevant facts as detailed in the pleadings of the partics.(3) The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff company was established 80 years ago and has been engaged in the manufacture and marketing...
Orient Express Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Usha Pasricha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT531; 1992(23)DRJ142; 1992RLR189
S.C. Jain, J. (1) A limited tenancy was createdj on 4.2.1981 for three years with respect to First floor of 112, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in favor of Orient Express Co. (PO) Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. After expiry of the limited period of tenacy, the petitioner did not vacate the premises necessitating the landlady to file an execution application. Notice was sent to the petitioner. During the execution proceedings, the petitioner tenant filed objections under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. An amendment application was also filed for amending the objections. Objection was taken by the landlady that the objections Filed by the tenant were not maintainable in view of the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in various decisions. However, the Addl Rent Controller recorded the evidence on the objections and after appreciating the evidence on record the Addl Rent Consular vide his detailed order dated 17.12.1991 dismissed the objections filed under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »