Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments

Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT132TriDel

1. All the four appeals arise out of the order dated 31-7-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi holding that Slitter-cum-Rewinder Machine imported by the appellants was not a paper cutting machine which was covered by OGL, confiscating the same with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on the Directors Sh. Bimal Khemka, Sh. B.R. Gupta and Works Manager Sh. V. Chenniappa.2. We have heard Sh. L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sh. D.S. Malik, learned DR for the respondents. The appellants M/s Northern Plastic Ltd. are the actual users engaged in slitting/confectioning of Photo-sensitized paper/materials and duly registered with the Directorate of Industries, Uttar Pradesh as a small scale industry. The appellants imported one second hand fully programmed Paper Cutting machine and three knife trimmers with associated tools and accessories from England vide Invoice dated 12-9-...

Overseas Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT644TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi by which he has confiscated 56 rolls of PVC leather cloth valued at Rs. 37,936/- CIF and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the appellant as well its sole proprietor Shri Inder Jeet Singh. The learned counsel submits that action has been taken in resect of goods exported against advance licence No. 3049838 for alleged fabrication of documents under which goods were exported to fulfil export obligations against two other export licences No. 3084143 and 3148836. He submits that, notwithstanding his contention that for alleged forgery or fabrication of documents covering export of goods against different advance licences the present action in respect of a different licence is not valid, there is no basis for holding that documents had been fabricated or forged and the export obligation had been certified by the licensing authorities to have been fulfilled. He draws our attention to...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modern Mills Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT233TriDel

1. The question falls for consideration in this Appeal is whether the price of the containers in which the buyer supplies for the respondents for delivering the vegetable product to the buyer can be included in the value of the vegetable products manufactured and sold by the respondents to the buyer for the purpose of determining the value as well as excise duty to be paid by the respondents. It was argued on behalf of the Department that irrespective of the fact that whether product supplied by the buyer or not value of the container is to be included in the assessable value of the product manufactured and cleared by the respondents.2. Shri P.K. Jain, the Learned SDR contended that if the goods are normally sold in packed condition as in the instant case, the question as to who has incurred the cost of packing material is immaterial since the value of containers [forms] the part of assessable value of the product cleared by the Assessee. He submitted that Section 4(4)(a)(i) does not ...

Collector of Cus. Vs. Bromels Rubber Industries Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT77TriDel

1. When the matter has come up for final hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of the fact that notice of hearing has been issued to them. Since the matter is old one, we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue.2. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether item 'Oil treated Sulphur' imported by the respondents is classifiable under Tariff Heading 3823.90 as claimed by the Department or either under Tariff Heading 25.03 or 28.02 as per the party.3. The goods were originally assessed as residual products under Tariff Heading 3823.90, but the party filed a refund claim, claiming reassessment either under Tariff Heading 25.03 or 28.02 as items specially meant for 'Sulphur'. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the goods imported are tailor made product for rubber industry and are classifiable as residual products under Tariff Heading 3823.90. On a...

Jaswant B. Shah Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT669TriDel

1. The appellant, a partnership firm, acted as a clearing agent in relation to the import of a consignment of goods made by the importer, M/s. Madya Pradesh United Polypropelene Ltd. Bhopal. Duty was levied and paid. The appellant-firm subsequently filed an application before the jurisdictional Assistant Collector seeking refund of a part of auxiliary duty paid on the ground that by virtue of a notification auxiliary duty should have been levied at 15% and not at 30%. The.Assistant Collector rejected the calim on merits. The appellant-firm filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal, without going into the merits, on the ground that the appeal could not have been filed by the clearing agent or customs house agent in its own name and the agent could not have signed the verification and the proforma of the appeal. This order is now challenged.V. V. Dabke & Sons Bombay v. Collector of Customs Bombay, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 583. In that case also, the customs hou...

Indian Maize and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)56ITD518(Delhi)

1. The assessee is in appeal against order dated 29-12-1984 of the learned CIT (Appeals) upholding the order dated 23-3-1994 of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee-company in its return filed on 31 -12-1991 returned a loss of Rs. 18,54,52,160. The return was accompanied by copies of audited accounts and accompanying documents and annexures. The AO processed the return under Section 143(1)(a) and made an adjustment of Rs. 10,995 being U.P. Sales-tax, there being no proof of payment along with the return. This was done by him on 24-7-1992 and the assessee was informed that additional tax On the amount adjusted is not being charged in view of Delhi High Court decision in the case of Modi Cement Ltd. The assessee was also informed that demand will be charged on the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court since admitting that this was a mistake, submitted that it was the assessee which had brought this t...

Shakuntala Devi Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)1049; 1996(36)DRJ545

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) Petitioner, a lifer ( to use jail jargon) now lodged in the Tihar jail, has moved this petition seeking her release on parole on the following grounds, namely; A)that she is an old lady of 74 years and a patient of diabetes, B)that her health is deteriorating as the food, which is being provided to her, is not diabetes oriented; C)that she has a keen desire to meet her family members and last parole had been granted to her some 14 months before; D)that she had applied to the Delhi Administration for being released on parole but no response has been received from it so far. (2) The Delhi Administration has responded through counsel and contended that prayer of the petitioner had been considered and rejected on the following grounds:- 'THE prisoner is a bride-burning case accused who was sentenced to death by the trial court but reprieved to life by the Supreme Court. Almost from the beginning she has been paroled regularly every year and mostly for 3 to 6 months ...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shyam Sunder Kaushik

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. S.S. Kaushik (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) applied for electric connection for agricultural purposes in July, 92. His application was duly recommended by the Block Development Officer on 15.9.92. The opposite party decided to allow the application and advised the complainant to deposit the necessary fees on 6.11.92. The case was sent to the Zonal Office for executing the decision. The Zonal Office, however, turned down the application on 25.11.92. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant approached D.F.-II. 2. The plea of the opposite party before the D.F. was that the application was not bonafide as there existed five rooms as the site and that the area was contiguous to Sainik Farm area which have been unauthorisedly built. The opposite party took a firm stand that releasing of new connection in such an area was against the policy of the department. The D.F. appeared to have appointed a Local Commissioner. The Local Commission reported that ...

Rajindra Properties and Industries Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaki ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. M/s. Rajindra Properties and Industries (hereinafter called the complainant) had two electric connections No. K 1366823 and No. K 1366831 for commercial light and commercial power respectively at their premises No. 50-51, Community Center, Janak Puri. Both these connections were dis-connected in January 91 allegedly on the ground of non-payment of electricity bills. The complainant approached D.F.-II for a direction to the opposite party to restore both the electric connections and for payment of compensation for illegal dis-connection. The plea of the opposite party was that dis-connection had been made on account of default in payment of electricity bills and after giving proper notice. It was further stated in the reply that the supply could be restored on payment of dues, restoration charges and completion of certain formalities as the connections in question were commercial connections. On a consideration of the matter, the D.F. held that the opposite ...

Steel Worth (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT144TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Steel Worth (P) Ltd. being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 6-12-1985 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The matter relates to the project import with regard to the importation of empty Nitrogen gas cylinders for the expansion of the already existing gas plant. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, rejected the application of the appellant for registration of the contract under the Project Import Regulations 1965 on the ground that the party had not produced the documents relating to the extension of the validity of the industrial licence for manufacturing the Nitrogen gas, project report, etc. It was observed by him that the plant for manufacturing Nitrogen gas had already been set-up and the commercial production had also started. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta, rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to make proper submissions to the satisfaction of the original side and that the a...