Delhi Court July 1984 Judgments

K.R. Ramaswamy Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Three memorandum Nos. T-4/694/Mas/Ban/82, T-4/695/Mas/Ban/82 and T-4/697/Mas/Ban/82 (briefly the SCNs I, II and III) were issued to the appellant by the Enforcement Directorate, Madras (department) alleging that he was maintaining accounts in foreign currency abroad without repatriating the same to India within the period prescribed or without obtaining the exemption of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for maintaining such accounts abroad and thereby contravened the provisions of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) read with the Central Government. Notifications referred to therein. Memorandum No. T-4/696/Mas/Ban/82(SCN-IV) was issued to the appellant by the Department alleging that he failed to surrender the foreign exchange mentioned therein which he brought from abroad within the prescribed period and thereby contravened the provisions of section 14 of the Act. It was also alleged that he had defaulted to surrender the foreign exchange brought by him ...

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT524TriDel

1. These appeals arise out of the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) in 208-211/ 82 dated 7-6-82 and Order-in-Original No. 38/83 (Adjn. No. 76/83) dated 31-10-83 passed by the Addl.Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, respectively. M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. is a Government Company carrying on business of coal mining in Andhra Pradesh. They have three generating stations mainly to supply power to the mines to produce coal at Kothagudem, Belampalli and Ramagundam. The power generated in the three generating stations is mainly used for producing coal in the mines. Electricity has been brought under the purview of the Central Excise Act with effect from 1-3-78 as Tariff Item HE. The appellants have been submitting monthly returns in RT-12 giving particulars of the electricity generated and distributed. According to the appellants they are entitled to certain concession in regard to the quantity of electricity consumed under Notification 105/78 dated 27-4-78....

Vijay Khanna Vs. Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1984CriLJ1667; 1984(2)Crimes449; ILR1984Delhi911

H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Vijay Khanna, petitioner, challenges proceedings in complaint case No. 311-0, filed by Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein, for alleged offences under Sections 420/465/468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. against the petitioner, and pending in the Court below, as well as the order made by the Court below, on June 4, 1983. by which the court issued the process against the petitioner. By the said order the Court also directed that an intimation be sent about the pendency of the case to the Passport Officer concerned, informing the said officer that the presence of the petitioner was required in the Court in connection with the case.(2) According to the complaint, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-I to the petition, Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., the respondent carries on business in London in Video Cassettes and other electronics goods, and Pranab Kumar Banerjee, though whom the complaint is filed,...

indra Sharma Vs. Gopal Dass and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1985Delhi118; 1984(7)DRJ286

Leila Seth, J. (1) An interesting point has arisen in this case pertaining to evacuee propel ty. The question posed is as to the scope and effect of an earlier date of transfer specified in the deed of conveyance, than its date of execution. For on the result of this query, would depend who is the tenant of the transferee.(2) These are the brief facts. Sohan Lal was the tenant of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The tenancy pertained to the ground floor of premises No. IV/382 (New), Mehrauli, New Delhi. Gopal Dass resided on the first floor of the said premises. He was the claimant and purchased the entire abovementioned property.(3) The deed. of conveyance, in respect of the said free hold property was executed on 17th April, 1968 between the Vendor. President of India, and the Purchaser Gopal Dass. However, as indicated therein, the said property was transferred to Gopal Dass, respondent No. 1 with effect from 1st October, 1955. The deed of conveyance was in the form specified in A...

Jg. Glass Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT518TriDel

(a) a stay of the operation of the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, as well as the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi till the Appeal filed before this Tribunal is heard and disposed of; and (b) a restraint upon the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Sahara pur and the officers subordinate to him from interfering with the removal of printed glass bottles from the A.C.L. Unit of the Applicant's factory and from enforcing recovery of the differential duty for the past period till the appeal is disposed of by the Tribunal. (a) the Applicant has been a licensee for the manufacture of glass and glassware and commenced as a new venture the process of printing, with ceramic colours, on duty paid aerated water glass bottles in segregated area of its unit at Saharanpur duly approved by the Central Excise authorities; (b) after issue of a show cause notice, the question of the liability of the Applicant for payment o...

Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT521TriDel

1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before us.2. The dispute is about the classification of a product called "SANTICIZER 429" imported by the appellants (hereafter referred to as Bhor) at the port of Bombay. The Customs authorities classified the goods under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and charged duty at the rate of 100% (basic duty) plus 20% (auxiliary duty) plus additional (countervailing) duty at 40% corresponding to the Central Excise duty leviable under Item No.15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (GET). After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so assessed, Bhor filed a claim for refund of excess duty on the footing that the product was assessable as a plasticizer under Heading No. 38.01/19(6) ...

Shiv Ispa Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indus Valley

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1984Delhi405; [1986]60CompCas405(Delhi); 26(1984)DLT328; 1984(7)DRJ142; 1984RLR559

G.C. Jain, J. (1) It is not denied that time for delivery of goods was extended up to 15-3-79. Nor is this in dispute that the seller delivered the goods by 12-3-79. Now in terms of the clause 5 which we have quoted above the purchaser is entitled to 1/1000 per cent of the total value of the goods for each day's delay. This is his right. He has no right to claim or 'confiscate' the entire amount of Rs. 40.000.00 because the contract was never cancelled. Only where here is a delay of more than seven days the purchaser is given the right to cancel the contract and to 'confiscate the guarantee of Rs. 0,000.00 '. But that is not the case here. In fact under the contract Supply was made and was accepted by the purchaser. The second part of the clause will not thereforee, come into operation. The first part of the clause giving a right to claim damages at the rate of 1/1000 per cent of the total value of the goods is all that the purchaser is entitled to in this case. (2) Here the terms of t...

Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT507TriDel

1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceeding to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of various kinds of paper, falling under Item No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET). They were availing themselves of the concessions contained in two Central Excise notifications-one bearing No. 128/77 dated 18-6-1977 which reduced the duty payable on paper produced by certain specified types of paper mills classified according to their installed capacity and the other bearing No. 201/79 dated 4-6 1979 which conferred a general exemption on all excisable goods in which inputs which had suffered duty under Item No. 68 C.E.T. were used to the extent of the duty borne by the inputs. In the present case, wood pulp was the 'Input'. ...

Paper Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT512TriDel

1. An appeal was filed by M/s. Paper Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore against order-in-appeal No. 1489 to 1505/80 dated 30th June, 1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. The appellants manufacture corrugated boards and clear them on payment of nil duty by virtue of notification No. 14/78-C.E. dated 24-1-78 (which amended notification No. 46/71-C.E.). The dispute is for the period 24-1-78 to 25-8-78, and started on the day that notification No. 14/78-C.E. came into operation. This notification 14/78-C.E.inserted a proviso in notification No. 46/71-C.E. of 24-4-71 and goes as follows :- "Provided further that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the proper officer that such corrugated board has been produced out of kraft paper or out of paper and paper board of the type known as kraft liner or corrugating medium of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 grammes per sq. metre, in each case, and on which the duty of excise has been paid at the rate of thirty-sev...

Friflo Engineers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)10ITD821(Delhi)

1. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessee had filed return showing an income of Rs. 22,100. The assessee had also claimed that it was entitled to the set off of losses brought forward from earlier years. The ITO set off the losses in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1977-78 and after adjustment, the net taxable income was arrived at Rs. 3,758.2. The assessee had also claimed the set off of loss in respect of the assessment year 1975-76. As there was no discussion in the order of the ITO regarding this claim, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee had filed a return in April 1975, showing a loss of Rs. 21,957. The ITO, by his order dated 12-3-1976, computed the income at nil. Against this, the assessee filed an appeal and the AAC was of the view that the ITO had not considered the details of expenses and had not discussed as to which expenses were allowable and which were not. He also fou...