Delhi Court August 1995 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.
Ganga Rasayanie Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT176TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order -in-original dated 22-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. By this order, the Learned Collector has directed the appellants to pay the duty of excise at the appropriate leviable rate on 22 Kltrs of Solvent CLX received by them during the relevant period (August, 1981) under Rule 196 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Further, the Learned Collector has ordered that the goods weighing 400 Ltrs. of GR. 17/98 and 15443 Ltrs of Solvent CLX (total 15843 Ltrs) valued at Rs. 54,336.00 seized in the case on 1-9-1981 are liable for confiscation under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the goods have been provisionally released on their execution of B. 11 Bond with the cash security of Rs. 5,000/-and the same had not been produced in terms of B. 11 Bond executed by the assessee. Therefore, the Collector ordered them to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-towards the value of the...
i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (2000)(0)ELT00TriDel
1. These appeals involve similar issues. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.2. Brief facts of the cases are relating to these appeals are as under :- 2.1 E/5458/93-C. - The appellants who were engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes filed a classification list dated 8-7-87 in respect of printed racks unfolded, printed top lid flats unfolded, printed hinged lid cutouts unfolded Printed hinged lid cutout for captive use, Printed shells/hulls for captive use, and Cardboard outer. They claimed classification of these items under subheading 4901.90 of the Central Excise Tariff which covers printed books, Newspapers, pictures and other products of the printing industry attracting nil rate of duty.The Assistant Collector vide his order No. V/48/B/1/89-BC, dated 6-2-91 rejected the appellants' claim for classification of the products in question under sub-heading 4901.90 on the ground that being in the nature of cartons/containers they could not be deemed as excluded...
Asha Jyoti Spinning Mills Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT523TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-1-1991, the Central Excise Preventive Staff, Ludhiana, visited the factory premises of the appellants herein, who are manufacturers of Acrylic yarn, and recovered 81 gunny bags containing synthetic yarn weighing 4,860 kgs and valued at Rs. 1,45,800/-. In order to confirm the composition of yarn, one representative sample was tested from two local test laboratories and found to be 100% polyester yarn. The partner of the firm tendered a statement on the date of visit, admitting that the yarn was manufactured out of synthetic waste.2. The yarn was seized on a reasonable belief that it was dutiable under sub-heading 5504.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The samples were tested by the C.R.C.L., New Delhi and the test report confirmed that the sample is wholly composed of synthetic staple fibre (Polyester). The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh confiscated the seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of f...
Delhi Tourism and Transport Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD524(Delhi)
1. These cross-appeals for the two assessment years, namely, 1990-91 and 1991-92 are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi. Since common points are involved, they are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2.1 These two appeals by the revenue are for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. In these two appeals there is only one ground of appeal in each year, which reads as under :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) erred in granting relief of Rs. 24,17,65,160 crores by deleting the addition made on account of amount credited to Delhi Administration and other Government Economic Services by holding that it was a case of diversion of income and not application of income. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in considering the expenditure of Rs. 28.86 crores to Delhi Administration- Other General Economic Services' as a diversion of income rather ...
G.D. Rathi Steels Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD103(Delhi)
1.The appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90 is directed against order of CIT(A) upholding rejection of request for rectification of adjustments made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) vide Intimation dated 12-3-1990. In the above adjustments, the Assessing Officer added sum of Rs. 6,20,000 representing provision of gratuity for the purposes of Section 115J of Income-tax Act with remarks that these were unascertained liabilities liable to be added while working out book profit.2. The assessee-company filed its return for the assessment year 1989-90 declaring total income of Rs. 4,63,140. In the computation attached with the return, assessee surrendered and added back Rs. 6,20,000 representing provision for gratuity which was admitted to be hit by Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed separate computation under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act. In the said computation above provision of gratuity amounting to Rs. 6,20,000 was not taken ...
Empire Stores Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD108(Delhi)
1. The assessee is aggrieved with order dated 8-8-1994 of the learned CIT (Appeals). The main grievance of the assessee is with regard to validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The relevant facts are that assessee is a partnership. For the relevant assessment year it filed return of its income on 26-10-1981 declaring income at Rs. 1, 49, 510, including income from house property (Rs. 2, 46, 099) which included rent @ Rs. 25, 000 p. m. or Rs. 3, 00, 000 p. a. (gross) as relating to a portion of the building called Empire Stores given on rent to M/s Bata India. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 31-3-1983 when the rent so actually received as also disclosed from M/s Bata India was accepted.Subsequently on the basis of order of the Tribunal dated 13-7-1987 relating to partners of the assessee firm for assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80 the Assessing Officer noted that for the purposes of valuation of partners' interest in the partn...
Surinder Gupta Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR375(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This common order shall govern the disposal of five writ petitions, namely, Civil Writ Petns. Nos. 3286 of 1987, 3287 of 1987, 3288 of 1987, 3289 of 1987 and 3290 of 1987, filed respectively, by Surinder Gupta, HUF, Surinder Gupta, Miss Neha Gupta, minor (through father Surinder Gupta), Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta and Miss Sumina Gupta, minor (through father, Surinder Gupta), respectively, all arising out of an order passed in a set of common facts. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dt. 6th Nov., 1987, passed under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961, whereby the Appropriate Authority has in the exercise of the powers conferred by s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961, ordered purchase of the suit property at an amount equal to the apparent consideration for the transfer of the said property. In each of the writ petitions, the Chief CIT, the Appropriate Authority, the Union of India and the four vendors have been joined as respondents. The petitioners are the prospecti...
Manohar Singh Vs. Adarsh Nirman Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT103
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petition moved under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has been contested only on the ground that since the petitioner had accepted payment in full and final settlement of the claim as against the final bill, thereforee, the arbitration clause stands discharged. (2) Admittedly the petitioner received Rs. 7,75,000.00 and did represent that the amount so received was towards full and final settlement of the claim. But then the petitioner claims that this was so stated only under duress and in this respect my attention was drawn to a letter four days after the receipt executed for Rs. 7,75,000.00. It was mentioned therein: 'In spite of our repeated requests and reminders the Society had paid us only a sum of Rs. 7.75 lacs on 2.2.1992 and a receipt was obtained by the Society, wherein our's Manohar Singh was asked to write 'as full and final settlement'. We dispute the aforesaid undertaking which was given under duress, without our free consent and the same is/shal...
Gopal Bhagat Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)894; 1995(34)DRJ622
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner, a Medical Officer, serving with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was posted at Primary Health Centre, Mehrauli. It appears that some complaint against him was made with the Vigilance Deptt. alleging that the petitioner had admitted indoors Dr.Arvind Kumar Sharma on 1.6.95 though there was no reason why he should have been so admitted. The complaint having been investigated into, the report was placed before the Commissioner. Pursuant to his order dated 21.6.95, the petitioner has been issued with recordable warning dated 26.6.95 (Annexure-III). (2) The petitioner apprehended his transfer consequent to the above said proceedings. On 31.7.95, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking two reliefs : (i) a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to withdraw the recordable warning dated 26.6.95 (communicated on 6.7.95); (ii) and to pass further direction/order to the respondent No.1 not to harass/punish the petitioner in relation to the warning...
Motion Picture Association and Eastern India Motion Picture Associatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)55; 60(1995)DLT180; 1995(35)DRJ582
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) These two writ petitions raise common questions of law. These were earlier filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and later transferred to this Court to be treated as petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.(2) In the Fist petition (CWP No. 4408/93) there are five respondents, namely, (1) Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; (2) Films Division, a department of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Lucknow; (3) State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary; (4) Delhi Administration, now the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi; and (5) The Commissioner of Police, the Licensing Authority under the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The petitioner in this case is an association of Film exhibitors and distributors and is a body corporate and is duly registered under the Indian Companies Act. The members of the petitioner are engaged in the business of distribution and exhibition of motion pict...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »