Delhi Court July 1994 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maize Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT390TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against an impugned order dated 17-10-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The respondents have received back 6 bags weighing 150 kgs and 34 bags weighing 850 kgs Anhydrous Dextrose Powder for re-processing/re-conditioning/re-packing under Rule 173-H and had cleared after procuring three bags weighing 150 kgs and 16 bags weighing 800 kgs of Dextrose Powder without duty. The party had received the product Anhydrous Dextrose Powder for re-conditioning under Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules and had cleared after processing Dextrose Powder. The demand was raised for the products cleared without payment of duty and the same was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. In appeal Collector (Appeals) has observed that Anhydrous Dextrose Powder which was brought in for re-processing/re-conditioning/re-packing and the Dextrose Powder which were cleared subsequently are the same in composition. Seiving does not amount...
Mahila Sidh Nirman Yojna Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD472(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, one by the assessee and another by the revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi. For the sake of convenience both the appeals are disposed of by this common order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the depreciation is allowable during the year.The assessee debited depreciation of Rs. 5,19,530 in the income and expenditure account. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) disallowed the claim of depreciation on the ground that the entire capital expenditure on acquiring fixed asset was allowable under Section 11 in earlier years, therefore, the question of allowing depreciation does not arise.3. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ghalib Institute [ITA No. 2314 (Delhi) of 1983] as also Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of St.Ann...
Dr. J. Jacob and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3330; 55(1994)DLT577; 1994(30)DRJ391
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated November 25, 1992 passed by Mr. K. S. Mohi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi summoning them in a case based on FIR No. 186/1992. 2. On August 24, 1992 at 11.40 p.m., a First Information Report was lodged by Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, complainant, with the Police Station Subzi Mandi from which it appears that the complainant was staying at 6, Boulevard Road in the official accommodation provided to her husband Mr. J. P. Singh, ASJ for the last five years. It also appears that the Delhi Administration had allotted the land covered under Bungalows Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 Boulevard Road to St. Stephens' Hospital subject to their vacation. Against this a writ petition was moved by Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties in which an interim stay was granted by this Court. In respect of bungalow No. 4, it is asserted that on its vacation by one Mr. R. K. Khanna, forcib...
Vikash Polymer and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)754; 1994(31)DRJ30
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) In all these matters there is a challenge to notification issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, withdrawing earlier notification issued under the same section withdrawing exemption from payment of duty of customs. The case of the petitioners has been that they had entered into a contract for import of Pvc Resin prior to the date of withdrawing the duty exemption, and that, thereforee, the notification withdrawing exemption was unconstitutional and illegal. A Full Bench of this Court in Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. and mother v. Shri K. Chandramouli, Under Secretary to the Government of India and others, (1983) 1 Del 487, held that notification under section 25(1) were issued in the exercise of soverign legislative powers and the challenge of the petitioners, thereforee, must fail. Later also a Bench of this Court had taken the similar view in Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited v. Union of India and another, (1983) 2 Del 327. The present petitions, t...
National Winders Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT614TriDel
1. This reference application has been preferred by M/s. National Winders against Final Order No. A/38/92-NRB, dated 7-1-1994 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order had held: "6. Claim for refund can arise only when duty is paid. Now whether payment of duty herein the proviso means the payment of duty by the manufacturer or does it mean the payment of duty by the claimant? If we presume that in the proviso any duty paid under protest refers to the duty paid by the assessee then there can be no dispute that any claimant can claim refund without any time limitation. However, if we presume that claim for refund is invariably connected with the payment then any duty that has been paid their protest will refer to the duty paid under protest by the claimant. The point for examination in such cases will be whether the claimant had lodged any protest at the time of payment of such duty. I also observe that the relevant date for counting the period of six months is the date of purch...
India Navigation Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT373TriDel
1. M/s. India Navigation Co. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise. The Addl. Collector in his order had held :- "The party had stressed the point that they have not acted in defiance of law and as such no personal penalty could be imposed. I observe that the party had deliberately removed the modvat inputs under their internal challans without following the prescribed procedure and without reversing the credit availed on these inputs. The General Manager of the unit had admitted on 14-3-1990 that the part consignment was transferred to their second unit at Gurgaon on different dates against internal challans and no credit was reversed or adjusted in their RG-23A Pt. II at Mayapuri Unit. The consultant at the time of personal hearing also admitted that they had stopped production of 'Compasses' in their Mayapuri factory about two years ago. He could not produce any correspondence to show that they had informed the juri...
Bharat Berg Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT417TriDel
1. M/s. Bharat Berg Limited, Malwan, Distt. Fatehpur (UP) - Pin 212664 has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. The said appeal was presented in the registry on 5-5-1994. Simultaneously, a stay application duly supported with an affidavit duly sworn before the Oath Commissioner has also been filed in support of his stay application.The stay application was taken up for hearing. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate pleaded that there is denial of principles of natural justice. The appellant had filed appeal before Collector (Appeals). He fairly stated that no stay application was filed. Later on, there was a communication from the Collector and in response to the communication from the Collector, the appellant had written a letter to the Collector (Appeals) for making a request for short adjournment and in that letter, it was duly mentioned that the stay application will be filed at the time of the hearing of the ...
Dr. Gopal Krishan Jaiswal Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD588(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the assessee Dr. Gopal Krishan Jaiswal, the sole question that arose for our consideration is the valuation to be placed upon the gifted properties. This assessment relates to the gift-tax assessment year 1990-91.2. The assessee made a gift of a flat bearing No. 42 situate on the 4th floor of Tower "L' Maker Towers and a garage No. 6 at Cuffee Parade, G.D. Somani Marg, Bombay in Maker Tower 'L' Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. to three different donees, who happened to be his sister, her son and her husband. This gift was made on 27-3-1990 under a regular registered deed of gift. Thereafter the assessee filed on 8-5-1991 a return of gift declaring the net value of the taxable gift at Rs. 2,12,000. The Gift Tax Officer on taking up the assessment came to the view that the property gifted was valued at a very low price and that its fair market value must be far higher than disclosed. Acting under Section 15(6) of the Gift-tax Act, the Gift-tax Officer referred the ...
K.G. Mal Vs. Sham Behari Mat and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)482; 55(1994)DLT137; 1994(30)DRJ242; (1994)108PLR3; 1994RLR545
Satpal, J.(1) This order will dispose of the applications bearing No.7532/88, 8290/88, 211/89, 3160/90 and 8916/92.(2) is 7532/88 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 94 read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and in this application it has been prayed that the defendants 1 and 3 be restrained from disposing of, transferring, selling or alienating the property No.26, Narayna Mudali Street, Madras and House No.B-172, East of Kailash, New Delhi till the final disposal of the suit and it has also been prayed that a receiver be appointed for the aforesaid properties.(3) is 8290/88 also has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 94, Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Order 38 rules 1 & 5 and Section 151 of the Code and in this application it has been prayed that the defendants I and 3 be restrained from transferring, parting with possession, alienating, disposing of or in any other way creati...
Rolex Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT419TriDel
1.1. The appellants herein are a partnership firm engaged in manufacture of forged articles of iron and steel. The adjudicating authority has classified the said goods under Tariff sub-heading 7308.90 of CETA, 1985 whereas the appellants contend that they fall under Tariff Heading 7208 as this is roughly shaped by forging. On adjudication, the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise has upheld the classification of the said goods under Tariff Heading 7308.90 and has demanded duty of Rs. 1,30,986.35 for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1987 by invoking larger period of limitation as stipulated in Section 11A. He has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellants. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. Learned advocate, Shri P.V. Sheth for the appellants has urged that the steel forgings manufactured by them are covered under Tariff Heading 7208. It has been submitted that the forgings manufactured by them had been subjected to processes upto and including the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »