Delhi Court October 1985 Judgments

Anand Ram Nanda Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1986CriLJ2008

ORDERG.R. Luthra, J.1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is for quashing a preliminary order under Section 145 and an order attaching, under Section 146 of the Code, a property No. 5229-31, Sarai Hafiz Banna, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. These orders were passed on 9th Aug. 1985 by Shri G. S. Chaturvedi, SDM, Kotwali, Delhi.2. The impugned orders were passed on an application dated 8th Aug. 1985 of one Rakesh Nanda, who claims to be in possession of the property in question, as a tenant of the petitioner. It was alleged in that application that there was dispute about the possession of the aforesaid property on account of which there was possibility of breach of peace and, thereforee, the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code be taken. Vide order under Section 145 of the Code, the learned S.D.M. called upon the parties, i.e., the present petitioner and Rakesh Nanda to appear before him on Se...

Corrugating and Paper Processing Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Corrugating & Paper Processing Co. Pvt. Ltd. had filed a revision application under the erstwhile Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, being aggrieved from Order No. 37-B of 1982 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. After coming into existence of the Tribunal, the said revision application was transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had manufactured and cleared goods (N.E.S.) falling under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act 1944 without obtaining a Central Excise Licence. On 16.11.1978, the Central Excise Officers of MOR-IV, Ghaziabad had seized 1000 boxes made out of corrugated board of the description "40 watts lamps" valued at Rs. 6760/- falling under Tariff Item 68 produced by the appellant, who ha...

indye Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC141

1. Appeal No. 377/82 is a Revision Application, filed before the Government of India, against Order-in-Appeal No. A-1195/BD-493/82 dated 17th August, 1982, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. After the constitution of this Tribunal, it has been transferred here and is now being treated as an Appeal before us. The Tribunal has also received and registered Appeal No. 288/83 against the same order. Both matters are being disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Synthetic Organic Dyestuff, falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 14-D. Under Notification No. 180/61-CE dated 23-11-1961, rapidogens, falling under Item No.14D-CET, are exempted from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon, if such rapidogens are manufactured from other dyes on which Excise Duty or Countervailing Customs Duty, as the case may be, has already been paid. The petitioners filed a classification list under Rule 173-B of the Cen...

Shri Gopi Krishna Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1986)(9)LC463Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been preferred by Shri Gopi Krishna against order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi.It is against the confiscation of primary gold and gold ornaments seized in this case from his business and residential premises confiscated by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. On 7.10.1977, 639.00 gms. of primary gold was recovered from the residential premises of the appellant and another quantity of 848.400 gms. of primary gold and gold ornaments were recovered from his business premises. He was charged for unauthorised possession of primary gold and dealing in gold without a licence under the Gold (Control) Act. The Deputy Collector confiscated the gold giving him option to redeem it on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000, The appeal against the Deputy Collr's. order was rejected by the Collr. of Customs (Appeals). When the case was called for hearing before the...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jaikisan Tobacco Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC1

1. The point of dispute involved in all these six appeals is common.Though they arise out of two separate orders-in-appeal, the second order in fact followed the ratio of the first. The appeals were argued together before us. We are, therefore, making this combined order for all the six appeals.2. The facts, in brief, which are not disputed, are that the respondents purchase raw tobacco, crushed in the form of flakes and packed in bulk packs, from the market. They do not add any ingredient to the tobacco, nor process it in any manner. They just re-pack the flakes into small paper/polythene packets, label the packets with their brand name and the description "Jarda" or "Bhugi" (Choora) and sell them. In retail, the 10 gms. packets sell at about 30 paise each. These are generally purchased by poor people who use the tobacco contained therein for chewing with or without the admixture of small quantities of slaked lime (such mixing is done usually on the palm of the user).3. The point at ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Belapur Sugar and Allied

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1986)(6)LC52Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurarngabad (the appellant) against Order No. M. 2476/Aur. 86/84 dated 10-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. On 21-4-1982, the Central Government issued notification No. 132/82 under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, exempting "sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st day of May, 1982, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1982, which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years." The exact nature of exemption from the duty of excise and special duty of excise [the latter was leviable in terms of Clause 50(4) of the Finance Bill, 1982, read with the declaration in the Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931], was specified separately for "free sale sugar" and levy sugar" and these two terms were defined. Para 4 of the notification, on which the dispute before us turns, read thus- ...

R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)14ITD366(Delhi)

1. These appeals are by the assessee pertaining to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82. In all the appeals, the point in issue is identical. So all the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee-firm is engaged in the construction of thermal power station and other building activities. While making the original assessments, the assessee was allowed investment allowance at the rate of 25 per cent, on new plant and machinery installed for carrying out the business. The ITO allowed the investment allowance treating the assessee-firm as an industrial undertaking.3. The Commissioner, subsequently, was of the opinion that the orders passed by the ITO were erroneous and were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. According to him, the assessee-firm was not engaged in manufacturing, construction or produce and, consequently, the investment allowance should not have been allowed. The Commissioner after hearing the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ammonia Supplies Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1986]162ITR664(Delhi)

D.K. KAPUR. J.1. We have had these petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act at some length because, according to the Department, section 154 of the Income-tax Act was not applicable to these cases. The assessed had been assessed under section 144 of the Act but the same was set aside under section 146. The question was whether the assessed was liable to pay advance tax on its own in these circumstances. The provisions of section 212(3), as it stood at the relevant time, required that an assessed who had not been previously assessed had to file an estimate of advance tax and pay tax according to the estimate. The words 'had not been previously assessed' seem to imply a person who has never been assessed before. Even if a person is assessed but his assessment is set aside, he appears to be a person who has been previously assessed. We agree that no question of law arises in these circumstances because the language of the section is not ambiguous. The exact language of the sec...

Nawab Khan Vs. Vidya Wanti

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 29(1986)DLT313; 1986(10)DRJ250

Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is a second appeal filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the legality of the judgment passed on 19th April, 1983 if the Rent Control Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the first appeal of the appellant herein, Nawab Khan, was dismissed. (2) To appreciate the contention of Mr. Tikku, learned counsel for the appellant, I may note that the appellant was a tenant in respect of premises in dispute at a monthly rent of P.s. 30.00 . The case before the Appellate Court was that the property in dispute vested in the Government of India and, thereforee, decree in favor of the Decree-holder Smt. Vidya Wanti, respondent herein was liable to be set aside in view of Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The question whether the said property belonged to the Government of India, and thereforee, the decree in favor of Smt. Vidya Wanti was liable to be set aside had also arisen in t...

Rama Swaroop Vs. the State (Delhi Administration) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1986Delhi191b; 1986RLR56

G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present two petitions [Crl. M.(M) 1114185 and Cri. M.(M) 1102185] of the same person Rama Swaroop are being decided' together and the judgment is being written in Cri. Misc. (Main) 1114185. He apprehends arrest by the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as FERA) as well as Delhi Police and, Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as IB). He, thereforee, in each of the applications has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Both the applications are contested and the Fera authorities as well as the police want to arrest the petitioner. Delhi police wants to arrest the petitioner because, according to them, the petitioner has committed offences punishable under sections 3 and 5 etc. of the Official Secrets Act. Fera authorities complain of violation by the petitioner of different provisions of FERA. (2)the petitioner is having his residence at D-83, defense Colony, New Delhi. He has two offices-one is located at A-5,...