Delhi Court March 1990 Judgments

Susan Leigh Beer Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 40(1990)DLT545; 1990RLR366

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this interlocutory application the plaintiff seeks certain directions further to this court's order dated 31st January, 1989 by which a letter of request was directed to be sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, for the examination of certain witnesses in the above suit pending in this court. (2) On notice being issued, the defendant has filed its reply to the application seeking certain other directions and not in fact opposing the application of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has desired that an order be made authorising the plaintiff's solicitors, namely, Quinlan, Miller & Treston, 16th Level. West Pac Building, 260 Queen Street Brisbane-4000, to make an application on her behalf to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, for giving effect to the letter of request sent by order dated 31st January, 1989, afore-mentioned. (3) To understand the rival contentions of the parties, it will be necessary t...

Domestic Appliances Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC290Tri(Delhi)

1. In this case the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants and seized 170 Pressure Cookers valued at Rs. 22,539.30. By the impugned order the Additional Collector held that those pressure cookers were not accounted for in the R.G.I register and were liable to be confiscated. As, however, the seized goods were released provisionally to the appellants on execution of B-11 bond with cash security of Rs. 4,600/- before adjudication and at the time of adjudication the appellants failed to produce the said pressure cookers in terms of the Bond, the Additional Collector appropriated the security of Rs. 4,600/- towards the value of the goods. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard Shri Beri for the appellants and Shri Chakraborty for the Revenue. Shri Beri has argued that the appellants did not manufacture weights and vent pipes of the pressure cookers. These two parts were procured by...

Wood Polymers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT595TriDel

1. Both these appeals involve common issues and are hence being disposed of by a common order.2. E/A No. 3303/89-C has been preferred against the order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 31-7-1989, classifying the products of the appellant under heading 3920.21 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.4. The process of manufacture in the case of paper based decorative laminated sheets/boards is as under :- Several sheets of duty paid kraft paper are passed through resin bath and are impregnated with a chemical solution which the department has classified as resin solution (phenol-formaldehyde solution) and classified under Chapter 39 of the Schedule, herein-after referred to as the said schedule, to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) to obtain resin impregnated paper. These impregnated kraft paper sheets are used as core paper. Similarly, decorative/printed/design paper which is also duty paid is impregnated with a chemical solution which, the departme...

Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1991Delhi25; [1991]70CompCas388(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT633

Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. This suit for recovery of Rs.7,40,606.65 together with costs and interest has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant - National Insurance Co. Ltd. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at E-5, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The plaint has been signed and instituted by one Shri G. Jhajharia who claims to be the director and principle officer of the plaintiff company authorised to sign the plaint and institute the suit. The defendant is a nationalised company. 2. The plaintiff has a factory at Delhi Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is stated in the plaint that the factory of the plaintiff was insured by the defendant since 1973 against, theft, fire, damage, etc., from time to time under the policies taken by the plaintiff. The plaintiff with a view to reinsure its factory requested Shri Dilip Bhattacharjee, the Development Officer of Division No.II of the defendant, to visit and inspect the premises. Accodin...

Mohan Gupta Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1990Delhi371; 1990RLR197

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This revision petition has been brought for quashment of the proceedings pending against the petitioner on trie basis of F.I.R. No. 446186 of Police Station Kalkaji for an offence punishable under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the course of investigation of case F.I.R. No. 444/86 under Sections 342, 376, 377 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the room in the residential house of the petitioner was searched and out of six video cassettes, lying there, one video cassette of Vhs 180 was found to contain obscene material and thus, was seized and a case was registered under Section 292 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It was not mentioned in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was having in his possession the aforesaid obscene video cassette for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation. Still the case was registered and the petitioner was put up for ...

income-tax Officer Vs. South Asia Industries (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]33ITD456(Delhi)

ORDERPer Ram Rattan, AM - This group of four appeals by the Revenue arising out of a consolidated order of the CIT (Appeals)-I New Delhi relating to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79, involving identical ground of appeal is being disposed of by a common order. The common ground of appeal for all the four assessment year reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in cancelling the penalty under section 273(a) as barred by limitation by ignoring his final order dated 15-9-84 (passed consequent to the directions of ITAT order dated 4-1-83) with reference to which the limitation shall reckon in terms of section 275(a) (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'2. Before considering the above common ground of appeal, we state in brief the facts of the case having bearing on the issue for the 4 assessment years under appeal. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 273(a) at the time of passing the assessment order. However, the asse...

Kishnidevi Vs. Add. Deputy Commissioner (Factories), M.C.D.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Prithvi Raj, President: (1) This is an appeal against the order No. D-14/2989 dated 14.2.89 passed by the District Forum whereby the Forum dismissed the complaint of the applicant seeking refund of a sum of Rs. 3,981/- deposited by the appellant for procuring Municipal Trade Licence. (2) The appellant was granted ad hoc Municipal Trade Licence No. 999 in 1969 for running Electroplating work with 7.5 HP Electric Machine in village Pipal Thala. It transpires from the record that the appellant did not get the said licence renewed subsequently. However, the appellant was allotted the new premises at factory No. 8-8/4, Badli Industrial Area Phase No.I as an alternative site in Industrial area from the non-confirming area of old premises at village Pipal Thala. (3) For renewing the old Licence from 1.4.69 to 31.3.88 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi charged Rs. 3,981/- to enable it to issue new licence for the new alternative site to entitle the appellant to run her factory. The appellant d...

Collector of Customs Vs. Shalimar Textile Manufacturing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC249Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the facts in brief are that Shalimar Textile Manufacturing P. Ltd., the respondents imported a consignment of goods described as "aluminium circles punched out of aluminium sheets/strips". The goods were assessed to duty under Chapter 76.08/16 CTA besides countervailing duty and were allowed clearance.Subsequently a notice of short-levy was issued to the importers in respect of CV duty.2. Aggrieved by the assessment the importers preferred an appeal claiming benefit of Notification No. 173/77-Cus. and 341/76-Cus. The Collector of Customs allowed the appeal in his order dated 22-4-1981 for the reasons given in another order passed by him on 17-12-1980 wherein the question involved was the applicability of the Notification No. 173/77 to aluminium slugs imported by another party. The summary of the reasoning given in the said order was that if the aluminium slugs cannot be held to be plates, sheets, they must in any case be accepted as circles. The ...

Fusebase Eltoto Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Overruled

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC170

1. The question that arises for decision in these three appeals is whether or not the "projection TV" manufactured by the appellants is eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 68/86, dated 10-2-1986 or not. There is no dispute about the classification of the item.2. Before we proceed to the main issue we refer to the background of the matter in the following lines. The appellants manufacture projection colour television sets in different models. Their claim for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 68/86 was rejected by the Department and by the Appellate Collector on the ground that what the appellants manufactured was video projector and, therefore, another Notification No. 160/86 was applicable. In substance the Department's case was that the goods did not fall in the category of "broadcast television receiver sets". What the set is and why the Appellate Collector upheld the Assistant Collector's order has been summed up in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order which a...

Nylon Laminated Belts (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC259

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur dated 29th April, 1982 (a) demanding duty of Rs. 36,111.15 on excisable goods valued at Rs. 9,02,778.80 cleared in contravention of the CE Rules (b) imposing a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- under Rule 173Q (c) confiscating seized nylon textile Belts/Beltings with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 70,000/- and levying duty upon the seized goods. The appellants are manufacturers of transmission and conveyor beltings, the base material for which is leather combined with nylon strip and/or other textile material. For their requirement of base material i.e. leather, they purchase raw hides from the open market which are chrome-tanned in their own fully equipped tannery. The appellants have been registered as a small scale industries unit with the Directorate of Industries, Government of Uttar Pradesh for the manufacture of the following products :- "Tannery products, namely, Upper Leather, Lining Leat...