Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments

Vazir Sultan Tobacco Inds. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT260TriDel

1. Both the present appellants namely, M/s. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Industries Limited and M/s. Samanto Lamination Private Limited have filed their respective captioned appeals against the impugned common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Vazir Sultan Tabacoo Industries Limited (for short M/s. VST) are holding Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of cigarettes falling under Tariff Item 4-II (2). They are also manufacturing shells and slides which are utilized for the packing of their brands of cigarettes. These shells manufactured by them were being assessed provisionally under TI 68 as per the interim directions of the Delhi High Court. However, with effect from 3-2-1982, the appellants M/s. VST stopped the manufacture of slides in their own premises and have been getting these slides manufactured on their behalf from the other appellant M/s. Samanto Laminates Private Limited, Moula A...

V.G. Duggal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1101; 1996(36)DRJ660

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner got himself registered for allotment of a flat of Mig category under Registration Scheme of New Pattern, 1979. This was on 1.8.79. In 1991, the petitioner was allotted a flat Several writ petitions were filed challenging the costing pattern adopted by the DDA. There were two rounds of writ petitions. Ultimately, all these petitions were; dismissed consequent loan order passed by a Full Bench in Sheelawanti's case : AIR1995Delhi212 . The allottees of the flats were allowed time for payment of the price. Instead of making the payment now the present petition has been filed submitting that basic amenities/facilities such as water, electricity and sewerage are not yet available in the area and as the respondent Dda would not be in a position to deliver possession over the flats, the Dda be restrained from demanding the, amount from the petitioner and at the same time the allotment made to the petitioner be not cancelled. (2) We are clearly of the opinion ...

Gian Chand Gupta Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)185; 61(1996)DLT308

Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Committee (in short 'NDMC'), who have failed to allot any alternative site to the petitioner. Petitioner belongs to the category of squatters belonging to pre-1957 period. (2) Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Pashupati Nath & Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, C.W.P. No. 285/1980 which was decided on 20.3.1985. He has contended that the NDMC itself has considered on the basis of Sub Committee recommendations and eligibility was modified for those squatters, who were squatting in the NDMC area. It has also been incorporated in the aforesaid judgment that - 'SUCH of thepre-1957verfiedsquattersand those from erstwhile T.C. Building in Connaught Place area in whom eligibility is certified by the Allotment Sub Committee.'(3) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner s...

Himalayan Plywood Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT240TriDel

2. We have heard the Deptt. Representative. The appellants filed two price lists in Part IV for tea chest panels manufactured by it. On the basis of these price lists and in view of the fact that all the goods were supplied to M/s. Sudershan Timber Company, the department proposed to value the goods on the basis of the price lists at which they were cleared by M/s. Sudershan Timber Co. holding it to be a related person.Since the appellant was not able to produce the bills showing the price at which goods were sold by Sudershan Timber Co., the Asstt. Collector adopted for assessment the price of goods, said by him to be comparable, manufactured and cleared by M/s. Vineer Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Asstt. Collector also denied the appellant the benefit of Notification No. 87/90 in respect of the goods which were not of ISI standard or supplied directly to the tea factory. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the findings of the Asstt. Collector. Hence this appeal.3 . The appellant claims that the...

Collector of Customs Vs. Hind Lamps

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT383TriDel

1 .This is a Revenue appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay granting the benefit of the exemption Notification No.242/76-Cus. in respect of imported goods namely "Electrocast Refractories with Zirconia Throat Well Blocks for Glass Melting Furnace" classified under Heading 6902.90 of the Customs Tariff, 1985; and thus allowec their refund application, which had been rejected by the Asstt. Collector (Refund).The Asstt. Collector held that the importers were licenced to manufacture lamps and not Industrial Furnaces. Photographs submitted drawing & suppliers literature showed that the goods are pre-fabricatec Blocks /Elements for the construction of the glass furnace in their plant. There fore, the Id. Asstt.Collector held that the goods do not fall within the description of bricks of special shape or quality. The classification under Heading 6902.90 not having been disputed and in case the goods are accepted as parts o furance (falling) under Chapter 84/86 (CTA) then...

Hari Kumar Vs. Sat NaraIn Mehra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ96

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Shri Hari Kumar, in this Second appeal has assailed the order of the First Appellant Court on the ground that the First Appellant Court, ignored the evidence adduced by the appellant herein (defendant before the Trial Court). He ignored the established fact that appellant was the tenant of Shri Shiv Kumar and not of the present respondent (plaintiff before the Trial Court). The Trial Court after detailed discussion came to the finding that the appellant herein was in exclusive possession of the suit property since 1973. And that he had been paying the rent to Shri Shiv Kumar uninterruptedly. This finding has been reversed by the First Appellant Court without assigning any reason. thereforee, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Moroever, the findings of the First Appellat Court are based on conjectures and surmises. First Appellant Court presumed without proof that property in dispute may be falling under properties bearing No.812 and partly m property No.813...

Kanodia Durrie Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. 03/VSI/93-94 dated 30-4-1993 despatched on 1-5-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 80,000 has been imposed on Sandeep Kanodia, Proprietor, Kanodia Durrie; for contravention of section 18(2), read with section 18(3), of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The allegation against the appellant is that he failed to realise the proceeds of exports covered by GRI No. 821196 of the value of DM 12,512.65 equivalent to Rs. 76,609.10. The case has been taken up for disposal in pursuance of the directions made by the Honble Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 28394 of 1995. After hearing the parties on the facts, the charge of contravention of section 18(2) cannot be made. I, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to consider the appeal on merits. Hence, this final order. 2. The facts are that the appellant made a shipment of nine rolls of Indian handknotted woollen carpets valued at DM 12,512.65 on 4-12-1986 under t...

Safari Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT298TriDel

1. The appellant (assessee) is M/s. Safari Industries (India) Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of moulded plastic luggage, brief cases and suit cases falling under T.I. No. 4201.10. The period under consideration is 1-5-1986 to 31-3-1990. M/s. Safari Sales Ltd., Bombay is a wholesale dealer in Bombay and will be referred to as the Bombay wholesale dealer in this order. Both are public limited companies. Shri Y.S. Mehta was shareholder and the Managing Director of the assessee till 31-5-1988. He has been Director of the Bombay wholesale dealer from 1-6-1988. The assessee was selling its products to several wholesalers, including the Bombay wholesaler, at the same price. 52% of the sales was to the Bombay wholesaler while 48% of the sales was to the other wholesale buyers. During the relevant period, the assessee spent over Rupees two crores for advertisement and sales promotion, while the Bombay wholesale dealer spent Rs. 50,09,285/-. There was no written agreement requiring Bombay who...

Rupa Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(82)ELT182(Del)

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is a proprietarily firm based at Bombay and is engaged in the import and export of diverse items inclusive of taper roller bearings. It imported a consignment of 10161 pieces of Taper Roller bearings valued at Rs. 81,288 (CIF) from Poland under an invoice and filed a home consumption bill of entry for the same for clearance thereof. The invoice showed the goods as spare-parts of machine tools whereas the declaration in the bill of entry showed it to be components for manufacture of diesel oil engine other than Motor Vehicles and Tractors. 2. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 8-5-1990 amended by corrigendum dated 15-5-1990 and two addend as dated 29-5-1990 whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the subject imported goods be not confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also why penalty be not imposed on it under Section 112 of the Act. The petition...

K. Satyanarayanan and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1996Delhi34

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of due financial control and scrutiny by Comptroller and Auditor General of India over the transactions of the money in the custody of or in the control of the Reserve Bank of India and other public sector banks and financial institutions. The petitioners seek for a direction that the accounts of respondent No. 2 and 3 and all other public sector banking and public financial institutions be brought on the regulation and compulsory audit by the Comptroller and Auditor. General of India as a matter of constitutional obligation. The petitioner also, in the alternative seek for a direction to the Ministry of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to invoke the procedure of Section 20(2) of the Comptroller and Auditor General (duties, powers and conditions of services) Act, 1971, to bring under the financial and auditing scrutiny of the Parlia...