Delhi Court September 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 65 results (0.021 seconds)QamruddIn Khan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC615Tri(Delhi)
1. Shri Qamruddin Khan had preferred this Revision Petition before the Government of India against the Order-in-Review passed under S. 130(2) of the Customs Act by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi whereby the Addl. Collector by his Order dated 30-8-1980, modified the order of the Assistant Collector, Air Customs, New Delhi. This Revision Petition has since been transferred for being dealt with as an appeal before this Tribunal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant arrived in Delhi from Singapore on 31-12-1979. He sought clearance of 15 parrots as his unaccompanied baggage. The Customs Officers consulted the Director, Delhi Zoo and appraised the assessable value of the parrots at Rs. 15,460 c.i.f. This valuation was contested by the appellant who stated that he had purchased the parrots at Singapore for US $ 100 only but that he did not have any receipt. He requested that the case be adjudicated without the issue of show cause notice. The parrots were assessed to du...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Venkataraman Iyer Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC319Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported from Malaysia a consignment of coconut oil. The goods were described as "white coconut oil, unrefined" in the bill of entry filed for their clearance. They were allowed to be cleared for home consumption, without payment of additional duty of customs, on execution of a bond bending chemical test. On 23-9-1978, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras wrote to the appellants informing them that the goods were found on test to be refined coconut oil and hence liable to additional duty of customs of Rs. 15,000/-. The appellants contested the demand which, however, was confirmed by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 28-4-1979. The appeal against this...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Fund Inspector and ors. Vs. C.K. Kajiriwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ253; [1985(51)FLR641]; 1985RLR577
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) The respondents herein C.K. Kajiriwal and I.P. Pahuja, Director and General Manager, respectively, of Ajudhia Textile Mills were prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 14A of the Employees Provident Fund Act read with para 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The charge against the accused was that they had failed to deposit the provident fund contribution far the month of January 1971 amounting to Rs. 11,102.25. (2) The defense of Kajriwal was that he was riot responsible for depositing the provident fund and that he was only responsible for expansion of the company for its modernisation. Kajriwal admitted that he was a director of Ajudhia Textile Mill Ltd. in the year 1971. Shril.P.Pahuja admitted that he was the manager of Ajudhia Textile Mill Ltd., in 1971. Pahuja stated that it was the Factory Manager Mr. B.N. Wali who was the person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company/establishment and that it was he who wa...
Tag this Judgment!Arson Industries and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(24)ELT86TriDel
1. By this application, the Departmental Representative has contended that the present appeals do not involve any dispute having a relation to the rate of duty or the value of goods for the purpose of assessment to duty. It is, therefore, urged that these appeals should appropriately be heard by the concerned Regional Bench and not by this Special Bench.2. We have heard Shri A. S. Sundar Rajan, Departmental Representative for the department and Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Sundar Rajan, took us through the impugned order and explained that there was no determination either of the rate of duty or the assessable value in these orders. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, on the other hand, contended that the determination of the correct classification of the goods under the Import Trade Control Schedule would also effect the classification of the good under the Customs Tariff Schedule.3. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The impugned orders do no...
Tag this Judgment!Western India Plywood Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2423Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the combined Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector disposed of the following three Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector :- (1) Order dated 18-5-76 rejecting the appellants' refund claim for Rs, 7,10,636.55 for the period 1962-1972. (2) Order dated 18-7-76 rejecting the appellants' refund claim for Rs. 4,475.98 for the period 1970-1971. (3) Order dated 17-1-76 directing the appellants to pay back the amount of Rs. 2,45,930.08 refunded to the appellants erroneously earlier, for the period January, 1973 to December, 1973.When the matter came up for hearing before this Bench, we noticed that the appellants had filed a common revision application before the Central Government and thereafter one supplementary appeal before this Tribunal. The appellants explained that in respect of the Assistant Collector's order dated 17-1-76, they had already obtained the necessary relief from the Kerala High Court. Thus, there were only two appeals pending befo...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash Kukreja Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT1
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the detention order No. F. 5/48/84-Home (P-II) dated August 28. 1984 issued under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi. The petitioner was actually detained on April 16, 1985. (2) The grounds on which the petitioner was detained are briefly as follows. On July 25, 1983 the petitioner arrived at Delhi Airport by flight No. Tg 303 from Hong Kong and reported at red channel for customs clearance. His oral declaration with respect to the contents of his luggage was accepted and on that basis customs duty amounting to Rs. 6,120 was charged. On suspicion his baggage was diverted for detailed examination which resulted into recovery of 31 wrist watches valued at Rs. 18,600. Those watches v/ere concealed inside...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maharaja Paper Board (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC631Tri(Delhi)
1. The Central Government levied ascess the duty of excise at the rate of 1/8% ad valorem on paper and paperboard, all sorts, under Section 9 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, with effect from 1st November, 1980.2. On 3-2-1981, by issue of a notification, the Central Government exempted the industrial undertakings "having investment in fixed assets in plant and machinery not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs" from payment of this cess. By issue of orders subsequently, the Government gave this notification retrospective effect from the date of the levy, i.e., 1-11-1980. Simultaneous with the exemption notification dated 3-2-1981, a clarification was issued by the Collector, by means of a trade notice that- "The cess is payable only on the out-put of paper and paperboard pertaining to the organised sector of the paper industry i.e. units registered with D.G.T.D. or licensed under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act." The point of dispute in the present appeal be...
Tag this Judgment!Ritu Puri Vs. S.K. Khurana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ118
H.C. Goel, J. (1) One Anoop Puri, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, had granted a license to the defendant No. I, Surinder Kumar Khurana, for the use of his printing machines on payment of monthly license fee of Rs. 3000.00 in terms of the agreement dated March 8, 1978. Anoop Puri had the right to revoke the license for breach of any of the terms of the license agreement. Anoop Puri revoked the license on May 31, 1979 by telegram and notice on account of alleged breach of terms. It was alleged that the defendant No, I failed to pay the license fee, telephone and electricity bills. The defendant No. 1, however, raised some disputes and demanded compensation for alleged wrongful cancellation of his license before the expiry of two years. Defendant No. 1 had appointed an arbitrator according to the arbitration clause in the agreement dated March 8, 1979 whereunder each party was to appoint an arbitrator and the matters in disputes arising out of the agreement were to be referred ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Gujral and ors. Vs. Ram Rang Batra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT456; 1985(9)DRJ258
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) A sample of Haldi powder was lifted from the respondent under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 8-6-78 by Shri R.K. Ahuja, Food Inspector and on analysis by the Public Analyst it was found to be adulterated due to the presence of artificial coal tar dye and extraneous matter of starches to the extent of 80% and excess of 3.82 in ash insoluble in dil. Hcl by wt. The respondent accused was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 in default of which he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2) In first appeal he was acquitted on the ground that by erroneous act of trial court the respondent has been denied a very valuable statutory right granted to him under Section 13(2) of Pfa Act and that provisions of Rules 7 and 17 have not been complied with. It is against this acquittal that the present appeal has been filed. (3) We h...
Tag this Judgment!Siemens (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT821TriDel
1. The above two appeals (both arising out of the same order-in-original and order-in-appeal), were heard by the West Regional Bench, Bombay, comprised of Shri S. Venkatesan, Sr. Vice President and Shri K. Gopal Hegde, Member. Since there was a difference of opinion between the two Members on a particular point, the President, on the matter being placed before him, referred the point to me, vide his order of 25-6-1985, for further proceedings according to law in terms of Section 129C (5) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 35 (D) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. Copies of the separate orders written by the two Members were supplied to the two parties. They were also heard by me. Shri S.P.Kampani, Consultant, represented M/s. Siemens (India) Ltd. while Shri N.V. Raghavan Iyer Jt. C.D.R., the Collector.3. The facts of the case have been spelt out in Shri Venkatesan's order and, hence, do not need to be repeated.4. The point on which the difference of opinion arose h...
Tag this Judgment!