Delhi Court April 1990 Judgments

Maninder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT255; 1990LC452(Delhi)

P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quash meant of the order dated January 24, 1990 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974(For short, the Act) with a vi(2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on June 18, 1989 the petitioner had arrived from Singapore via Bangkok at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and in presence of two independent witnesses his personal search was carried out and three egg shaped objects were recovered from his trousers pocket and they were broken and 7 pieces of gold were recovered on weighing of which the gold came to be 375 Grams. of the value of Rs. 1,15,500.00 . (3) One of the pleas taken by the petitioner in the writ petition in Ground No. Ii is that the authorities suspected the petitioner of having indulged in smuggling goods earlier and thus resi...

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT553TriDel

1. The learned counsel stated that the appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture primarily of Ayurvedic medicines in its factories located at Patna, Calcutta, Nagpur, Jhansi and Naini (Allahabad). The present proceedings relate to its factory in Naini (Allahabad) and concern the product 'Dant Manjan Lal' of which stocks valued at Rs.5,18,949 were lying in the said factory on 17-2-1986, fully accounted for in the appellant's records, and which stocks were placed under seizure by a team of Central Excise Officers, ostensibly under the "reasonable belief that M/s. Baidyanath are manufacturing Dant Manjan Lal falling under T.I. 68 with the aid of power; without Central Excise licence.2. Dant Manjan Lal is a preparation compounded out of raw materials.They are mixed together in the proportion and in accordance with the formula set out in the publication 'Ayurved Sar Sangraha' and marketed in containers. Prior to 1-3-1975, Dant Manjan Lal as also the other ayurvedic p...

Honesty Traders Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC534Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 830/10/90 Ap. Cus. dated 1-2-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin.2. The appellants M/s. Honesty Traders imported 17 packages containing 2,40,000 pcs. (20,000 dozen) YKK Zip fasteners 8 inches made in Taiwan from Singapore. A bill of entry bearing No. 167 of 11-12-1989 was filed in the appraising Department (Imports), Customs House, Cochin. The Unit price of the goods as per invoice from the suppliers was S $ 0.73 per dozen, i.e. Rs. 6.25 per dozen or Rs. 52/- for 100 pcs. On examination by the Department the goods were found to be tallied with the description as per Bill of Entry but the value shown thereon at Rs. 52/- for 100 pcs. was very low and goods were undervalued. According to Department there has been contemporaneous import of identical goods from Singapore at the price of J Y 1159 per 100 (Rs. 136.75) and at that rate the total of price of the goods worked out to Rs. 3,28,212/- against...

Jayalakshmi Cotton and Oil Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT268TriDel

1. M/s. Jayalakshmi Cotton & Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. has filed the instant appeal aggrieved with the Order No. 103/86 (G) dated 12-3-86 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants were engaged, during the material time, in producing vegetable oil from oilseeds and processing the same. During the months of January and February 1984, they paid cess on the oil produced at Rs. 5/- per quintal. Later on, they preferred a claim for refund of the cess so paid amounting to Rs. 62,488.25 on the ground that they were not required to pay the cess at all. The contention was that under the Vegetable Oils Cess Act, 1983, cess was not payable on oil produced from oilseeds or any other oil bearing material of plant origin which had been subjected to any processing subsequent to the recovery of oil.This claim was dismissed by the Assistant Collector whose Order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). It is the latter's...

Hari Om Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]34ITD420(Delhi)

ORDER--Absence of proper enquiry by assessing officer.Ratio:Where after search the assessment completed by assessing officer accepting cash credit amount without proper enquiries, assessing officer's action could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial.Held:The assessment for the year 1984-85 was framed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) after issue of notice under section 143(2). The wealth-tax assessment of the assessed for the assessment year 1984-85 had also been completed under section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, wherein the assessed had shown all these cash credits as liabilities and which were duly accepted by the Wealth Tax Officer. The Commissioner could only take into consideration the record as it stood on the date on which the assessment order for assessment year 1984-85 was passed namely, 29-11-1984. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the statements of some ladies recorded by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) after the search had...

Kapil Kumar Tayal Vs. General Manager, D.E.S.U.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Prithvi Raj, President: (1) The petitioner who is a partner of M/s. Tayal Plastic Industries filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that M/s. Tayal Plastic Industries (hereafter called the industry) was granted a licence of 28 H.P. by the respondent in the year 1985 for running a plastic industry against the power connection No. K-6047 A- 2 granted in the name of the industry. The appellant approached the respondent in June 1987 for regularisation of the said power connection in the name of the industry and also for releasing the additional load sanctioned by the respondent. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of regularisation of the said connection, the respondent imposed penalty retrospectively in the sum of Rs. 11,147.50 for the period 18.4.1980 to March 1989 which could not be done as the respondent cannot bill a consumer for accumulated arrears for more than six months. The appellant further contends that in May, 1983 the respondent had taken a decisio...

Fertilizer Corporation of India Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT494TriDel

1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 203/OR/85 dated 30-9-1985 passed by the Collr. of C. Ex. (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 191/79 dated 19-5-1979 was admissible in respect of that quantity of ammonia supplied by the appellants to the Heavy Water Plant at Talcher for manufacture of heavy water but not returned to the appellants in terms of the notification. The lower authorities held that the benefit of the notification was not admissible.3. We have heard Shri Jayant Das, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR, for the respondent.4. Several contentions were put forth before us but, in the view which we propose to take, we do not consider it necessary to advert to, and discuss, all of them.5. The notification in question exempted ammonia from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon subject to the conditions set o...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Cushions Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]185ITR280(Delhi)

Kirpal, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and in view of the decision in the case of East Asiatic Co. (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]161ITR135(Mad) , we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in directing the Income-tax Officer to set off the unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years against the income from other sources of the current year when the business stood discontinued ?' 2. There will be no orders as to costs. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Sagar Suri and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1990]185ITR485(Delhi)

Kirpal, J.1. This order will dispose of Income-tax Cases Nos. 27 and 28 of 1985. 2. In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, in the books of accounts of the respondent there was a cash credit entry of Rs. 25,000 in the name of Delhi Automobiles (Pvt.) Ltd., on December 2, 1971. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the respondent that this amount was received in cash from Delhi Automobiles (Pvt.) Ltd., in support of which the assessed had relied on the entry in the books of account of its creditor which was made on December 11, 1971. The said sum of Rs. 25,000 was added as an unexplained cash credit in the hands of the respondent. 3. An appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, A second appeal was filed by the respondent. An order dated August 25, 1983, was passed in which it was stated that the Explanationn of the respondent was not satisfactory and the addition of Rs. 25,000 was confirmed. It appears that the...

G.L. Khanna Vs. G. Doss

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT231

N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) The petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', by the owner landlord is directed against the order dated August 12,1987 pasted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act was dismissed. (2) The petitioner filed the eviction petition under Section 14(i)(e) read with 25B of the Act. In paragraph 18(a) of the petition it was pleaded :- 'BONAFIDE Requirement : The petitioner is the owner of the property. The premises in suit were let to the respondent for purely residential use. The premises in suit are bona fiddly required by the petitioner for residence of himself and his family members dependant upon the petitioner. The petitioner and his family as no reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The need is bonafide and urgent and as such the petition. The premises was let under Section 21 of the D.R.C. Act as at that time, the petitioner could...