Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Sushil Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an assessee's appeal relating to asst. yr. 1989-90 and arising out of the order of the CIT(A), Bareilly, dt. 29th April, 1991.2. Assessee is a dealer in lubricants. During the relevant accounting year ending on 31st March, 1989, assessee started another unit by name Jaiswal Chemical Industries, R/5-6 Industrial Area, Paraskhera, Bareilly. In connection with the new unit assessee has shown expenditure on construction of a factory. Investment during the accounting period had been shown at Rs. 6,92,555. The balance sheet of Jaiswal Chemical Industries, Bareilly, shows that the assessee had introduced a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 as his own capital in the venture. He also showed unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 2,25,000 from 13 persons.The assessee also showed as part of the capital introduced a sum of Rs. 10,000 said to have been earned by him from scrap business. Further, he had shown a sum of Rs. 1,12,000 as gifts received from the following six persons : (ii) Shri Kishorilal 16,00...

Dev Kumar Juneja Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)527; 64(1996)DLT431; 1996(39)DRJ540

Arun Kumar, J.(1) Renu Bala, a young 22 year old girl died on account of a fall from the roof top of a four storey building in the Esi colony, Basai Darapur, Delhi. According to the prosecution she was given a push by the appellant Dev Juneja while the defense version is that it is a case of suicide. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Renu Bala and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Dev Juneja has come up in the appeal against the said judgment.(2) The question for determination in the present appeal is whether it is a case of suicide or a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code Fir No.350/87 (Ex.PW11/A) was registered at police station Moti Nagar on 5th October 1987 at 8.05 A.M. on the basis of a statement made by Kailash Chander, father of the deceased girl. This statement is Ex.PW5/B (Rukka) and is reproduced as under:- '1reside at the address me...

Sushil Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)18

ORDERT. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, PRESIDENT :This is an assessees appeal relating to asst. yr. 1989-90 and arising out of the order of the CIT(A), Bareilly, dt. 29th April, 1991.2. assessed is a dealer in lubricants. During the relevant accounting year ending on 31st March, 1989, assessed started another unit by name Jaiswal Chemical Industries, R/5-6 Industrial Area, Paraskhera, Bareilly. In connection with the new unit assessed has shown expenditure on construction of a factory. Investment during the accounting period had been shown at Rs. 6,92,555. The balance sheet of Jaiswal Chemical Industries, Bareilly, shows that the assessed had introduced a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 as his own capital in the venture. He also showed unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 2,25,000 from 13 persons. The assessed also showed as part of the capital introduced a sum of Rs. 10,000 said to have been earned by him from scrap business. Further, he had shown a sum of Rs. 1,12,000 as gifts received from the following six pe...

How Genn Chyan Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal together with dispensation application has been filed against Adjudication Order Nos. 178-179/95/DD dated 27-11-1995 (despatched on 2-1-1996) under which a penalty of Rs. 20,000 and further penalty of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed on the appellant for two transactions of foreign exchange prohibited by section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). 2. The appellant has sent an application dated 1-8-1996 stating that it is not possible for him to attend the hearing at Delhi due to his old age and paucity of funds. He has prayed that his application for waiver of pre-deposit and the appeal be disposed of after considering the synopsis of his written submissions and the record of the case. 3. Shri Gadoo is present for the respondents. He has been heard. 4. The appellant has stressed one of the several points on which he has assailed the impugned order and in my opinion that point itself, which appears from a bare perusal of the impugned order, is sufficien...

Brijbasi Lime Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT681TriDel

1. The issue involved in the present cases is the correct classification of the product 'Calcined Lime Stone' manufactured by the appellants herein - According to the department, the product is nothing but quick lime covered under Chapter 25 of CETA, 1985 and under sub-heading 25.05. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellants that the product which is obtained by process of calcination is excluded from the purview of Chapter 25 by virtue of Note 2 to the Chapter and is not a product falling within the excise net. The process of manufacture which is undisputed is as under: "The applicant firm mixed limestone with steam coal in a certain proportion and this mixture feeded manually to the top of the kiln for firing. These kilns are having three zones such as (i) mixing heating zone, (ii) calcination zone, and (iii) cooling zone. This mixture so stored in the kiln was heated for required period and attained temperature ranging from 800C to 1100C hence process of calcination took ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Borachem Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT444TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay classifying the product 'PRO-10' manufactured by the respondents under T.I. 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The claim of the department is that the product is to be classified under T.I. 14E.Protein (as protein hydrolysate) : 1.0 gm.Thiamine (hydrochloride) : 2.0 mg.Riboflavin 5-phosphate : 2.0 mg.Pyridexine hydrochlorid : 1.0 mg.Niacinamide: 25.0 mg.Elemental iron (as ferrous fluconate) : 10.0 mg.Cyanocobalamin : 5.0 mg.L-Lysine (MONO hydrochloride) : 50.0 mg.Dose: As directed by the physician." The respondents claimed classification under T.I. 1B and exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 17/70-CE., dated 1-3-1970. The A.C.ruled out classification under T.I.-1B which covers "prepared or preserved foods put up in unit container and ordinarily intended for sale, including preparations of vegetables, fruits, milk, cereals, flour, sta...

Devi Dayal Stainless Steel Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT388TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Devi Dayal Stainless Steel Indust. (P) Ltd. the issue for our consideration is whether the waste and scrap on which the appellant had claimed exemption under Notification 204/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 had arisen out of the goods falling under any item other than Item No. 25 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were bringing duty-paid stainless steel sheets classifiable under Item No. 25 of the Tariff and were processing them to manufacture laminations and stampings classifiable under Item No. 28A of the Tariff. Stainless sheets brought from outside were subjected to the process of blanking and during the process of blanking certain scraps arise. The appellants had availed of pro-forma credit in respect of the sheets and the credit taken was to be utilized towards the payment of excise duty on the stampings classifiable under Item No. 28A. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the waste and scrap in question had arisen before the ...

Wiltech India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT411TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 18-12-1986.2. The notice for hearing was duly sent to the appellants. Inspite of it, no appearance has been caused nor there is any communication received from them requesting for adjournment or otherwise. In the circumstances, we have gone through the Appeal Memo and further documents filed with it and perused the impugned order and heard the DR.3. The learned DR states that the appellants are manufacturers of Safety Razor blades and plastic handles and the dispute relates to the classification of plastic razor Wilman II made out of plastic and described in the classification list effective from 1-3-1986 as Item No 4. The appellants had claimed the classification under Heading 39.22 but the Assistant Collector did not accept the same and classified the same under Heading 82.05/00.5. The Collector (Appeals) has also upheld the order. The department's contention was that 82.05/06 heading covers razor (razor...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Seth Lalit Modi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]232ITR348(Delhi)

THE COURT 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions are referred for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the valuation of the shares of Modipon Ltd. held by the assessed was to be done in accordance with r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amounts deposited by the assessed under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974, did not constitute the assessor's assets and were not includible in the wealth of the assessed under the WT Act, 1957 ?' 2. The aforesaid questions relate to the asst. yr. 1979-80 and common questions have been referred in respect of three assessees, viz., Seth Lalit Modi, Seth Mohinder Kumar Modi and Seth Satish Kumar Modi. Since the questions involved are purely legal and are substantially concluded by the decision of this Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper-book. 3. This ...

Forbes and Forbes Campbell and Co. Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT700TriDel

1. These appeals are directed against order in Appeal Nos. 3962/87-BCH and 3963/87-BCH of the Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported one case containing NORMAC TC-75 Automatic Tap Chamfer Grinding Machine and claimed refund of Rs. 95,546.92 being the difference in customs duty charged on the toolings representing the difference of duty for assessment under Heading 84.45/48 which they claimed and 82.05(1) which the department adopted.3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. The appellants have, however, requested for decision on merits.4. Ld. DR submits that the appellants have imported Automatic Bur Tungsten Carbide Burs. It is, however, indicated that these are special accessories and in fact they have charged separately. These, therefore, do not fulfil the conditions of "Accessories Condition Rule, 1963" for assessment at the same rate of duty at which the main machine K 30A is assessed.5. We have heard ld. DR and perused the reco...