Delhi Court June 1995 Judgments

Mari Gold Papers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT241TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 31,20,773.43 and penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- imposed on the applicant by the Collector of Central Excise, North U.P., Meerut in the impugned order dated 13-1-1995.2. On hearing Shri K.L. Rekhi, the learned Consultant and Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR, we find that the appeal itself lies in a short compass may have to be remanded for compliance with the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, we grant the stay and with the consent of both the parties, we take up the appeal itself for disposal on merits.3. The appellants herein manufactured kraft paper falling under subheading No. 4804.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act were availing exemption for the product. Proceedings were initiated against them on collection of intelligence by the department that the appellants were wrongly availing of the exemption under Notification No. 48/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 and are actually using less than 75% bagasse pu...

Shriram Industrial Enterprises Vs. Coll. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT324TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-12-1986 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of compressors falling under Tariff Item 29 A of the Central Excise Tariff. The Central Excise officers visited the appellants factory on 11-12-1985 and recovered certain records. On scrutiny of the records and after further investigations the Department served a show cause notice on the appellants requiring them to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 69,30,990.23 basic plus Rs. 5,46,549.51 Special Excise Duty should not be paid by them in respect of compressors manufactured and removed by them during the period 1-1-1981 to 30-11-1985 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.It was pointed out in the show cause notice that during the first three months in 1981 compressors of a value o...

Racmann Springs (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995]55ITD159(Delhi)

ORDERPer A. Satyanarayana, Vice-President - This appeal filed by the assessed is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -XV, New Delhi dated 31-1-1994 for the assessment year 1981-82 for which the previous year ended on 30-6-1980.2. The assessed is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of automobile springs leaves. It filed a return on 10-10-1983 in pursuance of notice under section 139(2), showing a loss of Rs. 36,43,609 which included loss for the current year amounting to Rs. 11,35,128 and brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 25,08,481.3. The assessment was originally completed under section 144 on 8-10-1984 determining the total income at Rs. 36,55,169. This assessment was set aside on appeal by the CIT (Appeals) by his order dated 24-3-1988. The Assessing Officer was directed to make the assessment afresh.4. In pursuance of the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order dated 24-3-1988, the Assessing Officer passed a f...

Racmann Springs (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)660

ORDERA. SATYANARAYANA, VICE-PRESIDENT :This appeal filed by the assessed is against the order of the CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, dt. 31st Jan., 1994, for the asst. yr. 1981-82 for which the previous year ended on 30th June, 1980.2. The assessed is a private limited company engaged in the business of automobile springs leaves. It filed a return of income on 10th Oct., 1983, in pursuance of notice under S. 139(2), showing a loss of Rs. 36,43,609 which included loss of the current year amounting to Rs. 11,35,128 and brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 25,08,481.3. The assessment was originally completed under S. 144 on 8th Oct., 1984, determining the total income at Rs. 36,55,169. This assessment was set aside on appeal by the CIT(A) by his order dt. 24th March, 1988. The Assessing Officer (AO) was directed to make the assessment afresh.4. In pursuance of the directions of the CIT(A) in his order dt. 24th March, 1988, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment order under Ss. 143(3)/25...

Shankara and ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ43; 59(1995)DLT428; ILR1996Delhi274; 1995RLR540

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) In our country, a large number of poormen, distressed women and unfortunate children are lodged behind prison bars awaiting trials in the courts of law for months and years.(2) Most of the undertrial prisoners according to I. G. Prison's list-A are presently lodged in Tihar Jails have been charged with minor offences, which even if proved would not warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps for a year or two and yet these unfortunate forgotten specimen of humanity are in jail. deprived of their liberty, for years without even as much as their trial having commenced. It is a crying shame on the judicial system which permits incarceration of men and women for such long periods of time without trial, as aptly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon's case, : 1979CriLJ1036 .(3) The instant case is even more shocking and revolting to the conscience. It is clearly a slur on our administration of justice. Even out of those unfortunate p...

D.N. Aggarwal Vs. Mrs. Kaushalaya Devi Marwah

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants filed a complaint against one Mrs. Kaushalaya Devi Marwah, (2) her daughter Mrs. Veena Sarpal, (3) Madhusudan Upadhaya stated to be share broker, (4) M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., and (5) M/s. Gupta Associates, also a share broker. The case was that they had purchased 200 shares of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (opposite party 4) from opposite parties 1 and 2 on 28.6.91 for Rs. 28,700/-. The transaction was through opposite party 3. On 28th June, 91 itself the complainant handed over a pay order for Rs. 15, 300/- from out of the total consideration and a cheque for balance amount of Rs. 12,900/-. The complainants were given delivery of 100 shares on 28.6.91 itself and the remaining 100 shares were to be delivered on the encashment of the cheque. The cheque was encahsed on 29.6.91. It was however, averred that the complainant further handed over 100 shares out of the above 200 shares to respondent No. 5, who...