Delhi Court July 1989 Judgments

R.R. Holdings (P.) Ltd Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Gupta, Chairman - This is an appeal against the order of Special Director of Enforcement, Delhi, dated 6-1-1989 whereunder the appellant was held liable for contravening the provisions of sections 8(1), 14 and 47 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act') and a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs for contravention of section 8(1) and section 14 and another Rs. 6 lakhs for contravention of section 47 of the Act (totalling Rs. 12 lakhs) was imposed on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and in all essential particulars analogous to those in Appeal No. 28 of 1989. The appellant R.R. Holdings (P.) Ltd., N. Delhi (RR) is a (P.) Ltd. Co. and had entered into an agreement with Sumitomo Corpn., Tokyo (SC) on 12-10-1984 whereunder RR agreed to render assistance and support services to SC in regard to the sales of their computer systems to the DOE, Government of India for which the appellant was to receive 6.25 per cent of the FOB value of the orders secured and executed...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. P.N. Monga Bottlers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT447TriDel

1. This is originally a Sho Cause Notice issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers of Revie Under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and statutorily it has been trans ferred to this Tribunal as an appeal in terms of provisions of Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. When the case has come up for hearing the learned Consultant for the respondents Shri Lachhman Dev raised a preliminary objection that the revie proceed ings initiated by the Govt. of India were already dropped as per order dt. 6-9-1978 and hence the same cannot be transferred and survivied as an appeal before this Tribunal. Secondly, he urged that revie proceedings initiated by the Government of India in Order-in-Appeal No. 58/CE/Appeal/KNP/77 dt. 10-2-1978 itself was barried by limita tion. Bench heard both sides on the point of preliminary objection and reserved orders.3. The facts, in so far as they are material for disposal of the preliminary objec tion, a...

Printasia Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC343

1. In this appeal, the appellants have sought for classification of the imported product namely 'Yositani Brand Automatic Plate processor Model MT-A2 with its accessories under entry Item No. 84.34 instead that of in Entry Item No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as has been done by the lower authorities. The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of their appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay in his order-in-appeal dated 27-9-1982 passed in F. No.S/49-17782 Aid which confirmed the Order-in-Original No. S/12/4094/81, dated 2-12-1981/10-2-1982.2. The contention of the appellants is that the imported Automatic plate processor is not a photographic item and the principle of photography is not involved. It is also not a photo copying machine as has been held by the Asstt. Collector. The principle involved in this item is of polymerchemistry. There is no sensitive coating on the plate used in the apparatus for printing on the plastic material, which gets embosse...

Harvimder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990CriLJ270; 1990(1)Crimes514; 39(1989)DLT337

M.K. Chawla, J. (1) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) hereinafter referred to as Cofeposa, Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India passed an order of detention of the petitioner dated 13-10-1988, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. As a consequence of this order, the petitioner was arrested and detained on 7th Novernber, 1988. On the same day, the grounds of detention were duly served. (2) On 25th November, 1988, the petitioner exercised his right in making the representation against the order of his detention, to the detaining authority and the Centra Government. His representations were carefully considered and the same were rejected by order dated 23rd December, 1988, but communicated to the detenu on 17th January, 1989. For the determination of the questions in controversy, the other facts need not be stated. (3) The contention...

Gasam Pour Karami Ligvan Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990CriLJ523; 39(1989)DLT281; ILR1989Delhi66

M.K. Chawla, J. (1) By this Judgment, I propose to dispose of two connected criminal writ petitions No. 82 of 1989- Shri Gasam Pour Karami Ligwan vs. Union of India and others, arid Criminal Writ petition no. 86 of 1989--Rahim Muradi vs. Union of India and others, as both these petitioners (Iran nationals) Along with one other were detained for having been found in possession of gold with foreign markings on the same day. At this stage, it may be noticed that the detention against their other colleagues namely Shri torkzaban has already been quashed. (2) Both these petitioners are seeking the setting aside of the detention orders passed on 12th September, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma, an especially empowered officer u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), hereinafter called as Cofeposa Act. The order was passed aginst the petitioners with a view to preventing them from abetting the smuggling of goods. There is no need ...

Jaya Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1989RLR343

M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The petitioner Jayakumar @ Moorthy is seeking the setting aside of the detention order passed on 28.12.87 by the Govt. of Kerala u/s 3(1)(ii), (iii) & (iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), for short, the Cofeposa Act. The order was made against the petitioner with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of gold, engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. (2) Along with the impugned order, the ground of detention also dt. 28.12.87 were served on the detenu while he was in judicial custody. On 3.2.88 declaration u/s 9(1) of the Cofeposa Act (as amended) was issued by Shri B.V. Kumar. Additional Secy. to the Govt. of India. The Cofeposa Advisory Board in its report opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention and the continued detention of the...

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) Ii

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1989(24)LC640(Delhi)

B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act seeking reference of following 13 questions to this Court:-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an ad hoe disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000 out of expenditure on repairs to machinery in the present case?2. Whether the Tribunal's finding sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000 out of repairs to machinery is vitiated by absence of any material for the ad hoe estimate made in this behalf by the Tribunal?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000 out of repairs to machinery by applying a method other than the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessed company and always accepted by the department in past?4. If the answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative whether on the facts and in the circumstances of ...

Electro Steel Castings Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(24)LC558Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants manufactured, during the period October 1974 to June 1975, Steel castings in which fresh unused duty paid steel melting scrap was used together with old steel melting scrap. They cleared the castings on payment of full duty and later applied for refund of a part of the central excise duty paid by them on the ground that under Notification No. 17/71-C.E. exemption was available to the castings to the extent that duty was paid on steel melting scrap. This claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that as the input consisted of duty paid and non-duty paid melting scrap, the benefit of the said notification was not available to the appellants. The Appellate Collector upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.2. We heard the learned advocate who submitted that a perusal of the Notification No. 17/71-C.E. shows that it does not exclude from exemption manufacture made partly out of duty paid and partly out of non-duty paid raw material. He submitted that the...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ganesh Sugar Mills Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(24)LC494Tri(Delhi)

1.1. Under Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28-4-1978 M/s. Ganesh Sugar Mills Ltd. (respondents herein) were granted a sum of Rs. 3,63,094.80 on 29-12-1978 towards the rebate on excess production for the season 1977-78 and were provisionally allowed credit in the PLA against basic excise duty. Subsequently it was noticed by the department that the actual amount of duty paid by the factory on free sale sugar was less than the amount of credit actually allowed. A show cause notice dated 10-8-1979 was issued to the respondents by the Superintendent calling upon the respondents to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gorakhpur as to why the amount of Rs. 65,759.87p credited in excess should not be demanded from them and debited in their PLA. The respondents herein submitted a reply to the show cause notice. A hearing was also granted to them. The following pleas appear to have been made and dealt within the Order-in-Original dated 26-12-1979 which are reproduced bel...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1989]179ITR599(Delhi)

Kirpal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax praying for a direction being issued to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,01,246 by taking into consideration a letter from G. B. Industrial Works which was not produced before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent has a sister concern called Northern Steel Co. (hereinafter referred to as the 'sister concern'). The respondent paid some rolling charges to the sister concern for the relevant year 1981-82. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner applied the provisions of Section 40A of the Act and came to the conclusion that the charges which were paid to the sister concern by the respondent were excessive....