Delhi Court April 1990 Judgments

Siddiqui Khalid Ahmad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990(28)LC580(Delhi)

P.K. Bahri, J.1. The petitioner has been detained vide order dated September 20, 1989, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. In this petition challenging the detention order various grounds have been urged in support of the petition but it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds as this petition is liable to succeed on a very short point.2. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was in judicial custody at the time the detention order was passed and his two bail applications stood rejected and there was no other material mentioned in the grounds of detention which could enable the detaining authority to reach the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future and thus, the order of detention is vitiated on this score alone.3. In Dhartnendra ...

Oswal Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC281

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Oswal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana against the Order No. 42-CE/88 dated 4-8-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, demanding Rs. 4,13,630/- as duty on Knitted Acrylic Pile fabrics and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The charge against them is that they manufactured and removed the goods in question without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. In addition 213.10 metres/298.34 square metres of processed knitted Pile fabrics physically seized were confiscated and an option to redeem them was given on payment of Rs. 5,000/- in addition to the duty leviable.2. When the appeal came up for hearing, Shri G.S. Bhangoo, learned Counsel for the appellants started his arguments with the observation that Grey Fabrics viz. unprocessed were exempt in terms of Notification No. 109/86 dated 27-2-1986 which is given under Chapter 58. Knitted acrylic fabrics falling under Heading ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Anand Bazar Patrika

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC295

1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification of "Letterflex 135 E semi-automatic plate making machine imported by the appellants. The appellants seek assessment under Heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act which covers inter alia, machinery for preparing or working printing blocks, plates or cylinders while the Department claims classification under Heading 90.10 which covers inter alia, apparatus/equipment used for photographic processes.2. The machine imported by the appellants includes built-in polymer re-cycling unit consists of 2 units capable of producing 35 direct plates per hour, employing the dry development process. Each unit consists of 2 sub-units. The first sub-unit consists of the following: "(a) An arrangement for firmly fixing an aluminium plate (already out to shape and size) on a frame, by vacuum. (b) The aluminium plate is then automatically smeared with a pre-prepared Polymer mix (imported) by an automatic dispenser. (c) A doctor blade then moves...

M.R.F. Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC672Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants who are manufacturers of tyres & tubes, receive synthetic rubber (T.I. 16AA) and carbon black (T.I. 64) to be used as inputs in the manufacture of finished excisable goods mainly tyres, tubes and flaps. The Appellants claimed that they were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 95/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979 as amended by Notification No. 58/82 dated 28-2-1982. These notifications provide for partial exemption in respect of duty leviable on finished goods to the extent of duty paid on goods used as inputs, provided the procedure set out in Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules is followed. The appellants despatched Synthetic Rubber and Carbon Black to M/s. Madras Elastomers, where the goods were utilised in the manufacture of Rubber sheets falling under T.I. 16A(2) (These Rubber sheets were fully exempt from duty in terms of Notification 71/68-CE).The appellants expunged the credit of duty paid on synthetic rubber and carbon black which they had...

Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC251

"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the Petitioner was not entitled to permission under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for movement of bare copper wire without payment of duty to another factory for insulation and then being brought back to the factory of the Petitioner for further processes." 2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid purported question of law brief facts of the case as found by the Tribunal are set out below :- "The appellant company is a manufacturer of insulated wires and cables of various sizes and specifications. It added a new item namely copper winding wire in its range of products. It appears that the company did not have enough insulation capacity of bare copper wires to meet the demands of its customers. It was, therefore, drawing copper wires from duty paid copper rods in the factory and thereafter wanted to send the copper wires so drawn for further processing i.e. insulation with PVC compo...

Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC290

The appellants imported among other Gravure Processing Machines, an "Automatic Developing Machine", which is the subject-matter of disputed classification. The Revenue has classified the same under Heading 90.10 of CTA, 1975, whereas the appellants seek classification under heading 84.34. This classification has been upheld by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, this appeal to the Tribunal for classification of the Automatic Developing Machine under Chapter 84.34, C.T.A. (a) The Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that the Developing Machine develops sensitised carbon tissue paper or roto film which is contact printed in a dark room with the help of actinic light, while they had maintained before the Collector (Appeals) that the sensitised carbon tissue paper, which being printed is subjected to actinic light in the dark room, but the Developing Machine has nothing to do with the printing of carbon tissue paper. It is after the printing of the carbon tissue is over, with the help of ...

Prem Rattan and Shadi Lal Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC200Tri(Delhi)

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, a common order is being issued.2. Brief facts of the case as alleged in the show cause notice are as follows:- 2.1. The Customs officer visited the business premises of M/s. Dashmesh Photostat Civil Court, Moga on 2-7-1987 and found a photostat machine, make 'Cannon', of foreign origin in operation there. Miss Parveen Bala, an operator of the photostat machine informed the officers that she was working there as an operator on a salary of Rs. 200/- P.M. and that she had no documents relating to the photostat machine in her possession. She, however, informed that it belonged to Prem Rattan, one of the appellants herein, C/o Prince Photo Studio, Court Road, Moga. The officers sent a message for Shri Prem Rattan and had waited for nearly two hours but he did not turn up. They seized the photostat machine on the reasonable belief that being of foreign origin and there being no document for licit purchase or possession of the m...

Usha Rani Gupta Vs. the General Manager, D.E.S.U.,

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Prithvi Raj, President: (1) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.1.90 passed by the learned District Forum, Delhi. (2) Relevant facts of the case are as under : Smt. Usha Rani who is the owner of property No. 74 Sunder Nagar, Delhi, filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that the first floor of the building was let out to M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (hereafter called the Company) specifically for residential purposes but the Company was unlawfully using the premises for office and commercial purposes thereby using power far in excess of the sanctioned load after unlawfully creating power points; that on account of misuser a fire broke out at the Electric Distribution Boards of the premises on 27.5.88 and that all the Power Metres of the first floor and all circuits of the ground floor were burnt out. The appellant contends that because of the misuser the DESU should have cut of the electric supply of the Company by taking the aid of Schedule VI(...

Mrs. Sushila Devi Vs. M/S. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

B.L. Anand, Member: (1) This complaint has been filed by Smt. Sushila Devi w/o Sh. Baldev Raj R/o KD-41 C Ashok Vihar Phase-1, DDA M.I.G. Flats, Delhi-52 against M/s Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi and Sh. Rajinder Jaina S/o Sh. Tek Chand, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. Raj Sudha Towers-respondents. (2) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents had claimed and represented that they were owners of plot No. 28, Ashok Vihar Phase-1, Delhi and that they were builders and were going to construct the building known as "Rajindra's Terpanth Market" on the above said plot. The respondents offered space No. RTM-19, located on the basement floor of the said building having an area of 72 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per sq. ft. of the super area. That on the representation made by the respondents one Sh. D.N. Sharma S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma R/o B-4/48, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52, agreed to purchase the said space having an area of 72 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Paushak Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC257

1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. M-1126/BD-745/85 dated 28-11-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The issue in this appeal is whether 'Paushamycin' which is a mixture of oxytetracycline and streptomycin, was eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982. Both the ingredients are antibiotics and the preparation is used as an anti-bacterial plant spray for killing or inhibiting bacteria.3. The manufacturer's literature on the product states that Paushamycin controls bacterial plant diseases effectively. It is said to be an effective anti-bacterial plant spray formulation recommended for control of a number of bacterial plant diseases. The active materials of Paushamycin being systemic, it is stated, are absorbed very easily by plant tissue.4. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated 20-5-1985, held that Paushamycin was an anti-bacterial substance and not an insecticide and, therefore, not entitled for exempt...