Delhi Court May 1988 Judgments

Mirah Dekor (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1988)(17)LC558Tri(Delhi)

1. This order disposes of the applicants application under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. At the hearing of the application, Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate for the appellant-applicant hereinafter called applicant and Shri A.S.Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative for the respondent non-applicant hereinafter called non-applicant, were heard and the papers perused.3. The impugned order was communicated to the applicants on 2-5-1987 under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. An appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order under Sub-section 5 ibid. The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of the relevant period under Sub-section (3) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. The Memo of appeal was despatched to the Tribunal by speed post on 29-10-1987 and received in the Tribunal on 30-10-1987. The 3 months limitation under Section 129A(3) of the Act expired on 1...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Reelco Paper Products (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT435TriDel

1. The issue to be decided in this appeal in whether the cutting of jumbo rolls into strips amounts to manufacture. It is stated in the impugned order that the respondents are engaged in the production of "Key Board paper in spools for use on the monotype machine'', also known as "keyboard paper spools for use on the Monotype machine", "keyboard paper spools", "Monospool paper" or "Monotype paper". The manufacture of these items comprises of two stages, viz., (i) slitting and rewinding of Monospool paper received in jumbo sized reels from the paper mills to reels of lesser width and diameter, and (ii) perforation of the lesser sized reels along the edges. The Monospool paper in jumbo rolls are duty paid under Item 17(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held that the process of slitting, re-winding and perforation is not a process of manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and hence, no further ...

Lala Ram and Another Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1989CriLJ572; 36(1988)DLT8

M.K. Chawla, J.1. By this judgment, we propose to dispose of two connected criminal appeals bearing No. 116/84 filed by Lala Ram and Om Prakash, and Criminal Appeal No. 131/84, filed by Thakur Singh. These appeals arise out the order of Shri T. S. Oberoi, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 1st May, 1984, by which they were held guilty of offences under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused Thakur Singh and Lala Ram were also sentenced to R.I. for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under S. 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by the appellants, it is necessary to keep in mind the prosecution version of the incident. Few days prior to the present occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between Padam Singh (deceased) and the accused persons. With the intervention of the father and brother of Padam Singh, the dispute was amicably settled. However...

Collector of C.E. Vs. Universal Radiators Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1988)(18)LC448Tri(Delhi)

1. The facts are as follows :The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, passed on order on a refund claim for Rs. 62,063.54 filed by M/s. Universal Radiators Ltd. and sanctioned the amount of Rs. 28,861.26 and rejected the rest. The Assistant Collector, under orders of the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore by virute of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, made an application to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras and submitted that the assessees had not been able to establish that the goods, radiators, coolers, heat exchanger, had been used as parts of diesel engines and that the officer deputed for verification had not been able to get evidence that the goods In respect of which the refund daim was sanctioned were used as parts of diesel engines, or were parts of diesel engines. There was no proof that the goods were exclusively used as parts of diesel engines and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to exemption under Not...

Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT98TriDel

1. The dispute is with reference to liability for payment of duty on the bagasse produced by the appellants M/s Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. during the period 1.3.1975 to 30.11.1979 and 1.12.1979 to 31.12.79 covered by seperate show cause notices one dated 3.12.1979 and the other dated 24.4.1980. These notices had been issued in pursuance of audit notes. Under order dated 18.8.1980 the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand in respect of the period 1.3.1975 to 29.4.1975 as also removals under sales effected on 6.6.1979 and 11.6.1979. Under the said order he had dropped the demands in respect of the balance. The said order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 21.3.1983. This appeal is against the said order.2. Apart from their appeal memorandum the appellants have filed written sub missions dated 4.2.1988. None appeared on their behalf on the date of hearing. We have perused the records and heard Smt. Zutshi for the Department.3. The demands confirmed, ...

Nanattil Aboobacker Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 35(1988)DLT123

H.C. Goel, J. (1) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the detention order dated February 25, 1987 of the petitioner passed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department, State of Kerala, and for directing the respondents to forthwith s;t the petitioner at liberty. On April 29, 1986 two persons namely, Thuluvan Mohamed Kutty and Poozhithara Mammukutty were intercepted by the Trivandrum Airport Customs. Both arrived there from Dubai by an Air India flight. On search of their baggage it was revealed that they were carrying 18 and 16 gold biscuits of foreign origin of 10 tolas each respectively which were concealed by them in their suit cases. It is also alleged that certain incriminating documents were also seized from these two persons. The statements of both of them were recorded there by the Customs Officer. They both are alleged to have stated that the biscuits were to be handed over to Nanattil Aboobacker alias Aboobacker, Hazi, th...

Cc Vs. International Medical Devices

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order in appeal passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals).2. The respondents M/s International Devices Pvt. Ltd. were a 100% exported oriented unit. They had imported the goods which they described as "Single piece lenses unsterile". The goods had been originally imported in the year 1992. Certain proceedings were drawn against the respondents and the matter had come up before the Collector, Customs (Appeals). Under his order dt. 14.10.1992 he had remanded the matter to the Additional Collector, Customs. Consequently the Additional Collector, Customs had examined the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered confiscation of the goods but allowed redemption on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.0 lakh. A penalty of Rs. 25000/- was also imposed. The Revenue not being satisfied with this order of the Additional Collector, Customs filed an appeal with the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi who referred t...