Court : Delhi
Reported in : 40(1990)DLT388
S.B. Wad, J. (1) Petitioner, Ashok Solomon, has through this habeas corpus petition challenged the detention order against him passed on 19.1.89 The order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. In the detention order he is described as a kingpin in organized drugs trafficking. It is alleged that about 400 KGs. of charas was recovered from him on 21.7.86. The Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration, exercised his subjective satisfaction (that detention of the petitioner was necessary for prevention of illicit trafficking in drugs) on 19.1.1989 and passed the impugned order. After the alleged recovery of large quantities of charas from the detenu on 21.7.1986, criminal prosecution was started under the said Act. If the prosecution would have been vigorously pursued by the Administration the petitioner could have been convicted by now and could have been at least sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1991]70CompCas561(Delhi); 40(1990)DLT78
H.C. Goel, J.1. Shri Vimal Chand Jain, the creditor-respondent, had filed a company petition under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 filed a company petition under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), against Ambey Flour Mills Pvt Ltd., the appellant, with the prayer that the appellant company may be wound up. The allegations of the respondent in the company petition are that he had advanced four sums of loan to the appellant, namely, Rs. 30,000 on January 24, 1980, and Rs. 15,000 on May 23, 1980, Rs. 27,500 on January 24, 1980, Rs. 15,000 on May 23, 1980, Rs. 30,000 on January 24, 1980, and Rs. 35,000 on August 7, 1980. The appellant repaid certain amounts against principle and interest, but the appellant-company was not paying the balance amount and that it had come to the knowledge of the respondent that the appellant-company which was replied to by the appellant. The appellant denied having received the alleged sum of Rs. 35,000 of loan about which on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC198
1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) in Order No. 2001/86-BCH, dated 24-11-1986, wherein the extension of the Project Import Registration was denied to the appellants.2. The appellants are stated to be carrying on the industrial activity of heat treatment work, of castings, machine tools and fabricated vessels in their factory. They are registered as a small scale industrial unit with the Directorate of Industries.3. They were granted an import licence for the import of one complete unit of Mobile Heat Treatment machine. They applied for registration of the contract under the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 to avail the benefit of the assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. The Assistant Collector rejected their application, on the ground that they are dealing with only job work and their activities amount to a specialised support service and not manufacturing activities and hence does not fall within the scope of Indu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC172Tri(Delhi)
1. H.E.C. has filed the above captioned 28 appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Calcutta. Since common issue is involved in the above 28 appeals, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The appellants have also filed an application under Rule 23 of the C.E.G.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1982 requesting for the grant of permission for the admission of the additional evidence at the appellate stage. Particulars of additional evidence filed by the appellants are reproduced below :- 3. Shri N.C. Sogani, the learned consultant, who has appeared on behalf of the appellants has stated that the essentiality certificate was very much in existence at the time of the importation of the goods, but the same could not be filed due to some administrative difficulties and the appellants were under the honest belief that only consumption certificates were to be furnished for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 179/80-Cus., dated 4-9-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(26)ECC62
1. In all these appeals, common issue is involved, the issue being, what will be the correct classification of paper-based decorative laminated sheets for the purpose of Central Excise, which is the product of all the manufacturers concerned in this group of appeals.So, we heard all these appeals together and dispose them of by this common order.In Appeal No. E/2962/88-C - Meghdoot Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Meghdoot"), the product was, earlier, classified under T.I. 68. When Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into force w.e.f.28-2-1986, the appellant applied for classification under sub-heading 3920.31 of Chapter 39 which was approved on 18-8-1986. Subsequently, by filing another classification list, the appellant sought revision of the classification w.e.f. 1-3-1986 under another heading 48.18 sub-heading 4818.90 of Chapter 48. The appellant also filed a refund claim on 16-9-1986 for the excess amount of duty paid on clearances effective from 1-3-1986 onwards....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1990CriLJ732; 41(1990)DLT693
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This writ petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate order for quashment of detention order dated February 13, 1989 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. (2) The facts leading to the passing of the detention order, in brief, are that on receiving a secret information that petitioner was indulging in the sale and purchase of foreign exchange on a large scale and he was likely to sell substantial foreign exchange on January 5, 1989 at about 3.15 P.M. to some person at the business premises of one Naresh Aggarwal at G-26, first floor (near entrance). South Extension Market, Part I, New Delhi, the petitioner on the said date and time and at that place was apprehended by the officers of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC490Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 129-A(1) of the Customs Act against the order-in-appeal No. 1985/85 dated 30-4-1985.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported Industrial Nylon yarn against proper Import licence issued by the Import Trade Control authorities. The consignments were detained by the customs authorities pending certain verification and the consignments were deposited in a warehouse at the time of import. The Customs authorities were requested by the appellants to release the consignments and proper ex-bond bills of entry were filed by them but those bills of entry were not finalised by the customs authorities from 4-7-1973 to 27-8-1975 as DRI as well as SUB were making enquiries during these periods. The Bills of entry were finalised by the customs authorities on 27-8-1975.During this period, the countervailing duty on the goods were enhanced from Rs. 11.50 P to Rs. 19.60 P per kg. The appellants requested for levy of countervailing duty at the rate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC351Tri(Delhi)
1. Revision filed by the appellants before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1877/80 dated 1-1-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay has been statutorily transferred to this Tribunal as an appeal under Section 35P(2) of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants M/s. Weikfield Products Company (India) Private Limited are manufacturers of Prepared or Preserved Foods which fall under the Tariff Item 1(B) of the Central Excise Tariff. During the relevant period i.e. from 1-10-1974 to 30-8-1975 they had sold their goods through two broad channels viz.directly to the Canteen Stores Department (hereinafter called CSD) and to the Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation (hereinafter called the CMO), allowing 20% and 30% discount to CSD and CMO respectively.According to the appellants higher discount was allowed to CMO because they were sole selling agents for civil sales in India and they have to incur cost of freight for transport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC220
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31-5-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Mangalore by which he had ordered assessment of the second hand stone edge cutting machine imported by the appellants herein for purposes of assessment of Customs duty at enhanced value under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also further held that the import against the licence produced was unauthorised, ordering confiscation of the goods imported under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 levying a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.The facts in brief are that the appellants imported in September, 1987, one unit second hand stone edge cutting machine for which they declared CIF value of Rs. 35,000/- and also produced a Customs Clearance Permit over the same amount. They also made a further declaration that the machine had been supplied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC87Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, 'H' Group, Bombay rejecting the refund claim of the appellants herein and denying them the benefit of Notification 314/85-Cus., dated 11-10-1985 in respect of moulds for EVA and rubber. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the ground that the moulds in question were described in the invoice and Bill of Entry as "moulds for EVA and rubber" and because of this description, held that since the moulds are capable of use for rubber also, the appellants were not eligible for Notification 314/85-Cus., which exempts moulds falling within Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act when imported for the manufacture of artificial plastic articles from Customs duty. The goods were assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 84.06 about which, there is no dispute. On appeal, the Assistant Collector's order was upheld...
Tag this Judgment!