Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC343Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Nikon Systems Pvt. Ltd., NOIDA, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-original No. 63/87, dated 29.9.1987 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. Briefly the facts of the case are that the clearing agents of the appellant had filed three bills of entry on behalf of M/s. Nikon Systems Pvt. Ltd., NOIDA (U.P.) in the Customs I.C.D., Pragati Maidan, New Delhi for clearance of the goods mentioned against each bill of entry detailed below:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------B/E. Description of goods declared for clearance in Col. 6 of No. of cartonsNo. Bill of Entry.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------196 C.T.V. Components - Plastic Extruded/Parts 102197 Colour Picture Tube with deflection yoke 100198. C.T.V. Components 110 (i) capacitors, IC's Resistors, Rectifiers, Delay Line, connectors, Potentiometer, Transistors, The appellant had attached the following doc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1990Delhi117; 38(1989)DLT115; 1989RLR163
P.N. Nag, J.(1) The petitioner-tenant by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of Shri V. B. Gupts. Additional Rent Controller Delhi dated 6th August. 1981 whereby he has allowed the amendment petition filed by the respondent-landlady for ejectment under Chapter 3-A, Section 25(b) read with Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). (2) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent-landlady filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises in House No. 7133, Roop Nagar, Delhi on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her residence and her family members depending upon her The family of the respondent-landlady comprises of two grown up unmarried daughters, one married daughter, three sons, two of whom are married and a servant and that the portion in occupation of the respondent-landlady in the said house was not sufficient to accomm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1989(16)DRJ367; 1989RLR248
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is the wife's petition. She seeks revision of the order dated 30/11/1985 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing her application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). This application the wife filed in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage filed by her husband (respondent now before me) on the ground of cruelty.(2) Both parties were married in accordance with Hindu rites at New Delhi on 10/10/1982. The wife is a citizen of the United States of America (U.S.A.) though born in India. The husband at the relevant time was and even now is a lecturer in a college affiliated to Delhi University. After about one and a half month's stay in India the wife left for the U.S.A. She gave birth to a child, a daughter, on 27/8/1983 there. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the husband in the court of the District Judge, Delhi, on 15/5/1984. For the purpose of this petition, I need not go into various imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas428(Delhi); ILR1989Delhi359
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of detention order dated January 19, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act') and declaration dated February 4, 1988, issued under Section 9(1) of Cofeposa Act. (2) On October 15, 1987 the petitioner was arrested Along with other co-detenu and a recovery of contraband gold biscuits of foreign origin Weighing 25.663 kgs. valued at Rs. 79 lakhs was effected from a Maruti Car at the instance of the petitioner and the said contraband gold was seized. Detention orders have been made against S/Shri Sat Pal Bhandari, Ravinder Kumar Bhandari, Puran Singh and the present petitioner. (3) One of the grounds pleaded in challenging the impugned orders is that the detention order is dated January 19, 1988, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(22)LC568Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. 290 CE/IND/83, dated 7.11.1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi, whereby he held that breaking and scrapping of defective cement poles (for the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board) into broken poles could not be termed a process of manufacture resulting in excisable goods and set aside the Assistant Collector's order dated 24.9.80 charging duty on a quantity of such goods and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2000 on the respondents under the provisions of Central Excise law.2. This appeal had been heard on 23.5.88 when orders were reserved.However, both sides had requested that in the event of there being a previous decision having a bearing on the issue, they might be heard again so as to enable them to make submissions with reference to the decision. When the file was taken up for dictation of orders, it was noticed that there was a previous decision of the Tribunal having a bearing on the issue involved in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)32ITD489(Delhi)
1. Appellant assessee by the present appeal challenges order dated 7-1-1988 of the ld. AAC of Gift-tax, New Delhi for the asst. year 1982-83, inter alia, on the following effective grounds :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below were not justified in treating the transfer of two amounts of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 7,000 made on 6-4-1981 and 1-5-1981 respectively aggregating to Rs. 17,000 to his unmarried major daughter Miss Kalpana Goyal for her marriage as gifts chargeable to gift-tax (which were made keeping in view permanent heart disease of the appellant). 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. authorities below have completely ignored the specific mention in the so-called "MEMORANDUM OF GIFT" that the transfer of the amounts were meant for specific purposes of marriage of Miss Kalpana Goyal which were actually utilised on her marriage in 1986.2. Assessee by status in this case is an individual and advocate by profe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(22)ECC120
1. The allegation against the appellants in this case was that they removed 6,65,570 Kgs. of millboard/greyboard valued at Rs. 17,03,939.35 by mis-declaring the same as packing and wrapping paper and thereby evaded central excise duty during the period from 15.9.78 to 31.3.81.After adjudicating the case, the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad demanded differential duty on the aforesaid goods under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 invoking five years' limitation and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules for the various contraventions mentioned in the show cause notice and the impugned order.2. The facts of the case as stated in the impugned order are that the appellants filed the following seven classification lists on different dates under the provision of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules claiming exemption of Central Excise duty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)31ITD238(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's second appeal against the levy of penajty under Section 271(1)(c).2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. The assessee is a private limited company running a flour mill at Dehradun. The proceedings relate to assessment year 1984-85, the previous year for which ended on 31-3-84. During the said previous year the Income-tax Department on 14-7-83 conducted a search at the business and office premises of the assessee and also at the residences of Sri Praveen Kumar, a Director of the Company and Shri Hari Bhushan, a share-holder. At the residence of Sri Praveen Kumar, Director, 468 bags of 'murgidana' i.e. refraction was found, the value of which was estimated at Rs. 12,000. Refraction of 'murgidana' is a waste generated in the process of converting wheat into wheat-flour and various other products and we were informed during the hearing that it is usually so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1989(22)ECC326; 1989RLR143b
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This criminal revision is directed against order of an Additional Sessions Judge by which he had directed for framing of charges against the petitioner and his co-accused for offences punishable u/s 22 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ('NDPS Act') read with Section 120-B IPC. (2) The facts, in brief, are that Asi Partap Singh accompanied by other constables was stated to be patrolling the area on July 8, 1987. and had reached at about 7 P.M. near the corner of Martial Tito Marg, close to Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Nursing College, and he found the petitioner and his co-accused Amarjit Singh quarrelling and were snatching one book from each other and under the process the cover of the book had been torn into two pieces and each piece was found to contain a packet each. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and the S.H.O. had been called to the spot before taking search and those packets were found to contain morphine powder weighing 110 gms and aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1989RLR169
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This application has been moved on behalf half of Ravi Sharma-petitioner seeking review of my judgment dated 24.1.89, by which I had dismissed the W.P. brought by the petitioner seeking quashment of the detention order made against him u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988, with a view to prevent him from abetting and financing the export from India of narcotic drugs. One of the points raised in the W.P. was that a copy of the summons issued to the petitioner before recording his statement was not supplied in spite of demand being made to enable the petitioner to make an effective and purposeful representation. While dealing with this point, I held that there is no reference even casually or incidentally made to any written summons being served on the petitioner either in the grounds of detention or in any other document relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the detention order and thus...
Tag this Judgment!