Delhi Court July 1991 Judgments

Express Industries Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC55Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The appellants had filed a Bill of Entry No. 8201/ dated 19-1-1990 for the clearance of 17,500 pieces of flower fibre optic elements. They claimed clearance of the goods under OGL Appendix 6(1) of AM-1988-91 policy as components of Fibre Optical Lamps being manufactured by them as Actual User (Industrial) on the strength of their SSI Registration Certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thane. The appellants declared the goods as classifiable under Heading 90.01 of the Customs Act read with Customs Notification No. 69/86. A show cause notice dt. 29-3-1990 was issued to the appellants alleging that the goods being Parts/Sub-assemblies of Artificial Flowers were classifiable under Heading 67.02 of the Customs Tariff and were covered by Item No. 13 of Appendix 2(b) of AM-1988-91 of Import Policy. The show cause notice further alleged that the goods were liab...

Chief Financial Controller, Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC37

1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Cupro-nickel condenser tubes imported by the appellants were assessed at 80% + 35% + 28% CVD as Copper alloy tubes (copper 90%, Nickel 10%) under heading 74.07/08 of the Customs Tariff Act, 75. The claim filed by the appellants for refund of differential duty on the grounds that the tubes in question being meant for fitment as parts in condensors for turbines were assessable under heading 84.04/05 at 40% + 20% + 10% CVD was rejected by the Asstt. Collector. The appeal filed by the appellants was also rejected on the grounds that the copper tubes being specifically covered under heading 74.07/08 the imported tubes were assessable under that heading, notwithstanding the fact that they were cut to size for fitment in condensors.2. On behalf of the appellants we heard the learned advocate Shri V.Lakshmi Kumaran. He contended that the imported tubes had...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Hosiery Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(38)LC41Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of five months in preferring the appeal against the impugned order on the following grounds. The Revenue submits that the issue decided by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay was complicated and involving substantial legal implications. The Department had to ascertain the correct legal position by studying different authorities and consulting to the higher authorities. Subsequent to the filing of the application for condonation of delay, the Department also filed detailed reasons for the delay which are as follows: (a) The order of the lower appellate authority was received in the office of the applicants on 3.4.1984 and in the relevant section on 4.4.1984. (b) The order was first put up by the dealing officer on 19.4.1984. The order involved substantial legal implications regarding applicability of the provisions of the erstwhile Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules and, therefore, the case required to be referred to the Law...

Sagar International (P) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an assessee's second appeal arising out of its assessment for the assessment year 1984-85. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative.2. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed to have installed certain plant and machinery and claimed investment allowance in relation thereto. The Assessing Officer found that the said plant and machinery was not used in the year under consideration and he, therefore, declined to grant investment allowance for the assessment year 1984-85. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who has upheld the Income-tax Officer's view.3. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that, under Section 32A, investment allowance can be claimed either in the year in which the plant and machinery was installed or in the year in which it was used for the purposes of business. According to him, therefore, the assessee was entitled to investment allowance for the year under...

Col. M.C. Gautam Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1992Delhi49

ORDERB. N. Kirpal, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 3044, 3045, 3056, 3219, 3220 and 3467 of 1989, 977 and 3677 of 1990 and 32, 33, 34 and 35 of 1991. The common question involved in all these writ petitions is whether the officers who have been allotted married accommodation by the Army Headquarters can be asked to shift to another accommodation when they proceed on study leave.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in these writ petitions, for convenience, we refer to the facts mentioned in C.W. 35/ 91 (Col. M. C. Gautam v, Union of India). The facts of the other petitions are the same except that orders with regard to them were passed on different dates.3. Col. Gautam was posted in the Army on 7th December, 1987. In April, 1989, he was allotted regular residential accommodation meant for married officers. Prior to this he had been allotted single accommodation, with which fact we are not concerned at the present moment. The petitioner like the other pe...

Vinod Bansal and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 45(1991)DLT57

R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing an order dated 21.11.89 by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the framing of charge against the petitioners and others under Section 448 and Section 380 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code in a case based on Fir No. 79/82 pertaining to Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi. (2) The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioners and others are that there was a proposal made to Vinod Bansal, petitioner No. 1 on 20.11.81 by one Rajinder Sahney, property dealer, for sale of a show room bearing No. 10A, Scindia House, New Delhi, which was owned by M/s. Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. The property dealer took petitioners 1 and 3 to the aforesaid premises on 21.11.81 and a sale price of Rs. 14 lacs was agreed between the parties for purchase of that premises. On 24.11.81, petitioner No. 1 paid Rs. 3 lacs to the owners by a cheque...

P. Nelson Vs. V.K. Suri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 45(1991)DLT231

Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by Amending Act of 1988 (in short 'the Act'). By the aforesaid amendment, the Legislature provided that if the landlady is a widow and the premises let out by her or by her husband are required by her, for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovery of immediate possession of the tenancypremises.(2) After service of notice of the eviction petition, the tenant, (respondent herein), applied for leave to defend under Section 25-B(5) of the Act. One of the grounds taken, inter alia, was that since the petitioner had let out the premises to the respondent after she became widow, the provisions of Section 14-D were not available to her. The Rent Controller treated this objection as to the maintainability of the eviction petition as a preliminary point,and on the strength of a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as 0043/1990 ...

C.P. Kalra and ors. Vs. Air India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 45(1991)DLT113

Leila Seth, A.C.J.(1) Mr. Rakesh Luthra, learned Counsel for the petitioners has restricted his arguments to the limited question whether an employee has a right to notice before any administrative change is made in the promotional policy and whether promotions made on the basis of such changed policy are vitiated for lack of notice. (2) The facts are being briefly set out. Petitioner No. 1 Joined Air India on 3rd May, 1964 as Junior Traffic Assistant and was promoted to the post of Assistant Station Superintendent on 1st October, 1979. Petitioner No. 2 joined the service on 3rd April, 1967 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Station Superintendent also on 1st October, 1979Along with respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 3 is the Air India Officers Association. (3) It is the admitted case of parties that the circular dated 24th June, 1970 contained the promotional policy and procedure. The zone of consideration was originally three and this was subsequently enlarged in 1977 to five i ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.R. Tea Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC619Tri(Delhi)

1. Aggrieved by the common impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, the appellants have filed their present six appeals.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s. R.R.Tea Co. & M/s. R. Om Tea Co. are the manufacturers of 'package tea' which according to Department falls under Tariff Item 3(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, out of loose tea falling under T.I. 3(i) of the Central Excise Tariff. As a result of the visit by the excise officer on 8-1-1981 it was noticed that the respondents were manufacturing 'package tea' without having obtained a proper Central Excise Licence.As the tea was packed in polythene bags marked with standard weight of 1 kg, 500 gms and 250 gms and were found stapled having labels of Padamshri Brand kept inside the package. Accordingly, a case was booked on 13-1-1981 and a quantity of 45.250 kgs. of "Padamshri" and "Sartaj" Brand package tea was seized. A show cause notice was issued a...

R.H. Enterprises and Others Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 45(1991)DLT180; [1991]83STC447(Delhi)

B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. Rule D. B. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29th October, 1990, whereby the petitioner has been asked to give an enhanced security of Rs. 9 lakhs under the provisions of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. The petitioner is a dealer, who is registered both under the local as well as the Central Act. The petitioner was registered in the year 1983 and, according to the petitioner, till today it has no taxable turnover under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner's business is confined to local sales and only the local tax is payable. 4. The respondent issued a show cause notice under section 7(3B) of the Central Sales Tax Act, requiring the petitioner to show cause why additional security under section 7(3A) of the Act should not be furnished by the petitioner. The enhancement proposed was Rs. 14 lakhs. 5. The petitioner filed a reply in which it was, inter alia, submitted that most of its sales were local s...