Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Consol Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT131TriDel

1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification of contact lens solution manufactured by the appellant.2. The appellant was not present at the hearing, and no request for adjournment has also been received. Notice of hearing is seen to have been received on 3-11-1995. Therefore, after hearing the Departmental Representative we proceed to decide this appeal on the basis of the submissions made in the Memorandum of Appeal.3. The appellant had claimed classification of the contact lens solution under Heading 3402.90. The Assistant Collector had approved the classification, so claimed. On appeal by the Department against this approval, the Collector (Appeals) held that the product was classifiable under sub-heading 3307.90. The present appeal is against this order.4. The appellant's claim that Note l(c) to Chapter 34 does not include cleaning preparations has no relevance to the issue. It is further claimed that the contact lens solution manufactured by the appellant is onl...

Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]220ITR566(Delhi)

By The Court1. An agreement of sell dt. 29th Aug., 1988, in the petitioner's favor with respect to the disputed property was for a consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs. On 7th Nov., 1988, an order was made under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961, by respondent No. 1 for purchase of the property on an amount equal to the apparent consideration. This order when challenged in CW No. 2636 of 1988 was set aside on 22nd Feb., 1993, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam vs . Union of India : [1993]199ITR530(SC) . The Appropriate Authority was directed to take a fresh decision, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court and the facts of the case. It is the fresh order, passed on 26th April, 1993, by the Appropriate Authority, which is now under challenge in this petition. 2. In the public auction, which took place on 17th Sept., 1993, the property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 47.30 lakhs, which was fully paid on 29th Oct., 1993. The sale being confirmed, possessio...

Parmod Kumar Rastogi Vs. Gian Chand Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT231; (1996)114PLR36

Arun Kumar, J.(1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the concurrent decisions of the Additional Rent Controller as well as of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the objection of the petitioner against execution of the eviction order. The basic facts are that the respondent purchased the property in suit vide a sale deed duly registered on 12.8.1970. The sale deed showed that the father of the respondent namely. Ram Sarup Jain was already a tenant in the property. The petitioner herein was inducted' in the year 1976. An eviction petition was filed on 28th April, 1988 by the respondent herein against Smt. Lila Devi, the mother of the respondent who, according to the respondent had succeeded to the tenancy rights of his deceased father Ram Sarup Jain and the petitioner herein on the allegation that respondent No. I had without consent in writing of the landlord sublet, assigned or parted with possession of a portion of the tena...

Prakash Chand Singhal Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This Commission by its order dated 1.5.1995 directed the O.P. to pay Rs. 984/- besides Rs. 500/- as costs alongwith interest @ 15% from 1.10.1991 till date of payment. The above amount works out to Rs. 2,022.63 Instead of paying the said amount, O.P. has paid only Rs. 1,611 /- by its letter dated 18.4.1995 leaving a balance of Rs. 411.63. The applicant wrote to the respondent to make good the short payment or to explain why the amount had not been paid in full. He failed to elicit any reply. He has, therefore, applied under Section-27. Notice of the application was sent by Regd. post to the respondent. The Regd. envelop was not received back undelivered. It is presumed mat the same must have been served. The respondent failed to appear on the last date of hearing as well as today. In the circumstances we proceed on the footing that in spite of opportunity having been given, the respondent has failed to show cause. We, therefore, impose a fine under Section-...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Roshal Lal Mahindru

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in complaint No. C-1633 of 1992 District Forum-II passed a final ex-parte order on 9.2.93. The complainant moved an application u/Section 27 of the C.P. Act. Notice was issued to the respondent. The case of the respondent (opposite party) was that it had not been served with notice in the main complaint and acquired knowledge about the ex-parte order only on receipt of notice in the application u/Section 27. On 29.7.93 the opposite party made an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. On 13.12.93 the said application was dismissed for default. The case of the opposite party with regard to this dismissal is that in fact no date had been given to the opposite party Counsel for consideration of the application and the dismissal was, therefore, unjustified. An application for restoration was made which was again dismissed on 10.3.93. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 2. We have...

Smt. Sushila Kanodia Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. ADDL/HKS/II/5/91, dated 4-1-1991 under which a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant for non-realisation of the proceeds of exports of the total value of Rs. 6,00,680.39 thereby contravening the provisions of section 18(2), read with section 18(3), of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant has also filed an application seeking dispensation from the requirement of pre-deposit from the amount of penalty. This case has been taken up for disposal in pursuance of the order of 26-9-1995 made by the Honble Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 27574 of 1995. The charge as contended in the show-cause notice (SCN), dated 20-6-1986, in pursuance of which the impugned order has been passed, is that the appellant failed to realise the proceeds of exports made on 18-8-1983, 13-12-1983 and 30-12-1980 covered, respectively, by GRI Nos. BYJ 368982, BYJ 526326 and BYJ 526327. Total value of these exports is stated...

Super Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT539TriDel

1. In all these appeals, common questions of law and facts arises, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. By common order-in-original dated 28-8-1990, the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot passed a common order in respect of M/s. Super Engg. Co., Shri Kahan Traders, M/s. Mehta Engineering Works, M/s. Mehta Brothers and M/s. Mehta Industries (i) confirming the duty demand of Rs. 16,85,247.30 against M/s. Super Engineering Co. for heavy manufacture of brass scrap/laddi etc. weighing 510.681 MTs said to have been manufactured and removed clandestinely during the period 3-12-1980 to 16-8-1987 in terms of Rule 9(2) read with proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Confirmed a demand of Rs. 8,28,468.30 against M/s. Mehta Industries in respect of brass scrap/laddi etc. weighing 251.051 Mts. manufactured and said to have been removed clandestinely during 1-1-1985 to 21-1-1987 by M/s. Mehta Industries/Mehta Moulding Works...

Amiri Ali Ligaga Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ1607

1. I have heard the parties. This is appeal directed against the order of conviction dated 18-9-1993, passed by Mr. Kuldip Singh, ASJ, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under S. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years plus a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for another two years. 2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that on 28-1-1989, in the evening there was an information that Tanzanian national will come with a heavy quantity of smack. On this information, raiding party was organized. Mr. A. C. Sharma, ACP, Crime Branch with the informer reached Kuldip Hotel, Paharganj, New Delhi and held a Nakabandi. At about 9-45 p.m., one Negro came from Paharganj and another Negro was found coming from the eastern side of Paharganj. One Negro, coming from eastern side, Amiri Ali Ligaga passed on the polythene bag to other Negro, Emmanuel Murder Aiseleph, which wa...

Mohd. Usman Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]224ITR730(Delhi)

By The Court Civil Misc. No. 2895 of 1995 in Civil Writ No. 457 of 1994 : 1. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. Civil miscellaneous is allowed. Civil Misc. Nos. 8069 of 1994 and 2894 of 1995 : 2. The writ petition was allowed on 19th May, 1994, for the refund of Rs. 84,500 in six weeks. We did not however, pass any order as to interest payable by the respondents. The petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court claiming interest but subsequently withdrew the same and then preferred to approach this Court by way of a review application. In this review application, notice has been ordered to the respondents and we have heard counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, namely, the Union of India, the Director of Enforcement and the Dy. Director and also counsel for the CIT. 3. A contention was raised by the respondents that inasmuch as the petitioner moved the Supreme Court and filed a special leave petition, he cannot approach this Court for review. We...

Sanghi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT238TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay Airport dated 5-7-1985/26-12-1985.2. The Learned Counsel stated that the issue relates to "Elastic Lace Making Machine" imported by them in 1985.3. The goods were classified under Heading 84.37 by the customs and there is no dispute about heading but the department did not allow the benefit of exemption Notification No. 16/85-Cus., dated 1-3-1985 claimed by them, although it was covered by Entry 32 thereof. The goods were confiscated on the ground that the importation was not covered by OGL since it was a versatile machine capable of more than one function.4. It was their contention that this item is specifically mentioned in Appendix I Part B Entry 35 which allows importation of capital goods under OGL as it stood at the relevant time.5. It is their submission that since the exemption Notification allows the benefit in respect of items listed therein and falling within Chapter 84. Therefore,...