Court : Delhi
Reported in : 33(1987)DLT199
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) In this petition the only challenge to the order of detention dated 24th March, 1987 under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act (For short called the 'Act') is that the detaining authority has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act. This provision lays down : 'FOR the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made, shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than 5 days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than 15 days from the date of detention.'(2) The submission is that the order of detention Along with the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner after the expiry of 10 days of his arrest for which no valid reasons have been given. (3) To appreciate this proposition one has first to know the background. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(14)LC21Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with the order of confiscation of the seized gold ornaments with an option to redeem the same on payment of the redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- and also imposition of penalty passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, the appellants have filed the present appeals.2. Factual backdrops : M/s. Man Singh Lamba and Sons-appellants herein-are licensed Gold Dealers having their shops at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Other appellants are the partners of the said firm. It is alleged that on 29.5.1982 as a result of the search of the business premises of the said firm a quantity of 1502.000 grams (73 pieces) of new gold ornaments of 22 ct. purity valued at Rupees 2,46,328/- was found in excess. At the time of the search and seizure Shri Man Singh Lamba and Devinder Singh Lamba, partners of the said firm were present.Another partner, Shri Jaspal Singh was also present, but he left the place during the course of checking. Since Man Singh Lamba, partner, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]23ITD12(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri U. S. Dhusia, Judicial Member - CIT, Agra has moved these applications under section 256(1) in respect of assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Since similar questions have been moved in respect of a common issue, we are disposing them of by this consolidated order. According to the applicant, the following questions are questions of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 5193 to 5195 for the asst. years 1981-82, 1989-1983 and 1983-84 which need be referred to their lordships for their opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 263 are not applicable and in canceling the order of CIT passed under section 263 2. Whether the Tribunals decision that mere failure on the part of the ITO to make enquiries and investigation regarding the assesseds versions and his acceptance of whatever has been said by the assessed in the return and the papers accomp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1987Delhi551
N.C. Kochhar, J. (1) M/S.PEOPLE Co-operative Labour & Construction Society Ltd. (the Society) had entered into a contract with the Union of India for doing the work of 'Formation of designed Section of Ghazipur Drain and desalting of Connate from Rdo to RD618 OM' and an agreement bearing No. EEV/FCD/ACS/Agt. 8 had been entered into between the partics. The said agreement is governed by the arbitration clause according to which in the event of disputes between the parties, they have to be decided by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Foods, Delhi (the Chief Engineer). The disputes having arisen between the parties, the Society moved the Court with an application under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act (the Act) for appointing an arbitrator and the said petition (Suit No. 369-A183) was allowed vide order dated 25th November, 1983 passed by Leila Seth, J. and a direction was issued to the Chief Engineer to appoint an arbitrator to decide the disputes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1987Delhi544
(1) The petitioner was arrested and detained on 8th April, 1987 pursnt to the order of detention dated 24th March, 1987 passed by Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods. (2) The circumstances leading to his arrest in brief are that on 4th September, 1986, at about 11 P.M. one Kamaljit Singh Dhawan, holder of an Indian passport arrived at Sahar International Airport, Bombay from Hong Kong by Cathe Pacific Airways. He got himself cleared through Customs from the red channel after paying custom duty on the goods declared by him. While he was proceedings towards exit gate, the Customs Officers, in the presence of panchas enquired from him if he had any gold, wrist watches or diamonds either in his baggage or on his person to which he replied in the negative. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(32)ELT730TriDel
1. Being dis-satisfied with the order of confiscation of the seized gold ornaments with an option to redeem the same on payment of the redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-and also imposition of penalty passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, the appellants have filed the present appeals.2. Factual backdrops: M/s Man Singh Lamba & Sons - appellants herein - are licensed Gold Dealers having their shops at Karol Bagh, New Delhi.Other appellants are the partners of the said firm. It is alleged that on 29.5.82 as a result of the search of the business premises of the said firm a quantity of 1502.000 grams (73 pieces) of new gold ornaments of 22 ct. purity valued at K.S. 2,46,328/- was found in excess. At the time of the search and seizure Shri Man Singh Lamba and Devinder Singh Lamba, partners of the said firm were present. Another partner, Shri Jaspal Singh was also present, but he left the place during the course of checking. Since Man Singh Lamba, partner, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD83(Delhi)
1. The assessee is the wife of Shri U.N. Abhyankar, who had gone out to foreign coun-tries on deputation and remained out from April 1972 to February 1983. The valuation date for assessment year 1978-79 is 31-10-1978. Daring the aforesaid previous year the assessee's husband was con-tinuously outside the country as per the certificate of the Ministry of External Affairs placed on record and he visited India for less than 4 weeks. The assessee was with her husband during his foreign assignment and was thus in India for 4 weeks only during the related previous year.2. While computing the net wealth of the assessee, the Wealth-tax Officer included, inter alia, her jewellery valued at Rs. 53,700 in her wealth. He took the status of the assessee as "resident". The assessee appealed against the aforesaid order to the learned Appellate Asstt.Commissioner and pleaded before "him that "the appellant was a non-resident" and as such the Wealth-tax Officer should have excluded the value of the je...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(45)ELT109TriDel
1. M/s. Kinjal Electricals (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad, submitted a classification list dated 28-6-1977 declaring lamp holders as falling under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. It appears that pending approval of the classification list, the respondents cleared the goods under that item. The department, however, felt that the goods were correctly classifiable under Item No. 61 of the CET with effect from 18-6-1977. On 17-12-1977, the Inspector of Central Excise issued a peremptory demand to the respondents directing them to deposit Rs. 19,562.11 towards duly which had not been paid by them on lamp holders falling under Item No. 61, CET, since 18-6-1977. Later on, the department seems to have found that the correct amount should have been Rs. 26,082.85. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 3-2-1982 under Central Excise Rule 10 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In due course, the Assistant Collector passed an order on 15-5-1982 confirmi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(14)ECC43
1. Under notice dated 15-3-1980 the appellants M/s. Vishwa Industrial Works were intimated hat they had manufactured and cleared, from their unlicensed factory premises, goods falling under item 51A CET (Screw drivers and line testers) during the period 1-4-1978 to 31-3-1979 and upto 10-4-1979, and that they had not observed the relevant Central Excise formalities in connection herewith such as filing classification list, price list etc. and action was therefore proposed to be taken to recover from them, under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 10(1) of Central Excise Rules, duty on the said goods as indicated in the annexure to the notice and also to levy a penalty. The appellants replied. After adjudication the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay under his order dated 29-6-1982 confirmed the demand on goods valued Rs. 2,31,938.13P cleared during the abovesaid period and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas596(Delhi); 1988(15)ECC427; 1992LC532(Delhi); 1987(32)ELT53(Del)
Arun B. Saharya, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the show-cause notice dated July 21, 1980 (annexure 1), issued by the Central Government in purported exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 82 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby it is proposed to revise the order dated December 13, 1979, of the Gold Control Administrator by which he set aside the Collector's order dated June 10/18, 1974, confiscating the gold bangles found in possession of petitioner No. 1, and also imposing a penalty or Rs. 5,000 each on petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The Central Excise Officer, Bangalore, seized 82 gold bangles on December 16, 1970, form the baggage of petitioner No. 1 and after issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioners, the Collector held that the seized gold bangles were not ornaments and that they were primary gold . He ordered them to be confiscated and also imposed penalty on the petitioners. ...
Tag this Judgment!