Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Jeet Pal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)494; 1997CriLJ299; 1997(40)DRJ805

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This is a revision against the judgment dated 4-3-1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.42/95 affirming the conviction of petitioners/accused under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act of which they had been convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and sentenced in consequence to rigorous imprisonment for six months as wall as a fine of Rs.5000.00 each, the sentence in default of payment of fine being simple imprisonment for three months.(2) Shorn of verbiage, the prosecution case is that on 14.8.1989, a raid was conducted by the Special Cell of Desu consisting of the Supdt. R.N.Maini (Public Witness 2), S.S.Gupta (Public Witness 3) and R.K.Anand (Public Witness 1) at the building bearing No.618 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar and it was found that the accused persons were committing theft of electrical energy from their domestic lighting meters for industrial purpose and it was also noticed that this theft was being committed with the hel...

Baldev Singh Dhillon and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT329

ORDERDELHI ADMINISTRATION sd/-(GEETA SAGAR)JOINT SECRETARY (L&B;)DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHIDIP-633/90.6. The notifications which were published in the newspapers, were, according to the petitioner, corrected by a corrigendum, which corrigendum is reproduced below :DAILY 'HINDUSTAN' HINDI DATED 8TH JULY, 1990DELHI ADMINISTRATION: DELHILAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENTCORRIGENDUMNotification published in this News Paper dated 28.6.1990 by Joint Secretary (L&B;), Delhi Administration Delhi vide Notification No. R9(l)/89-L&B;/2 dated 22.6.90, the portion before specification, may be read as under : 'No.F.9(l)/89/L&D;/2: Whereas the Lt.Governor, Delhi is satisfied that the land is required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely for 'Planned Development of Delhi' viz. Channelisation of Yamuna river. It is hereby declared that the land described in the specification below is required for the above purpose. This declaration is made under the provisions of Section...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT744TriDel

1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.SKM-1739/89-B-II, dated 23-8-1989 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).1.2. The issue for determination is eligibility or otherwise to exemption under Notification No. 140/86-CX of printed corrugated cartons/boxes manufactured out of corrugated paper and paperboard.2. Arguing for the Revenue the ld. D.R. submits that the base material for manufacturing cartons is classifiable under heading 4805.30 as it was duplex board. Classification of cartons under 4818.12 claimed by the Respondents applies only to such cases where printed cartons and containers are made wholly out of paper or paperboard. Since the base material falls under 4805.30 the products cannot be considered to be classifiable under 4818.12 but have to be classified under 4818.13 as other printed cartons/boxes and therefore would not be eligible to exemption under Notification No. 140/86. He also submits that the Respondents have not proved that these cor...

Sunshine Metal and Alloys Ind. P. Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT784TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order in Appeal No. 2277/88, dated 26-5-1988 passed by Collector (Appeals). The appellants imported Brass Ash classifiable under Heading 2620.30 and claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 493/86-Cus., dated 22-12-1986. The claim was rejected by the authority below on the ground that Brass Ash is excluded under S. No. 6 of Notification No. 493/86 from the benefit of exemption.2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. Appellants have asked to decide the case on merits. Ld. DR submits that notification specifically excludes ash and residue of copper including dross and therefore, concession in that notification is not available to the appellants.3. Considered. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. S. No. 6 of Notification No. 493/86, dated 22-12-1986 as amended is reproduced below: "S. No. 6 : Others [other than ash and residue of copper (including dross) and crude Potassium Salts].It ...

Southern Magnetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT458TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Southern Magnetics (P) Ltd., Madras, the issue for our consideration is the eligibility of HP 1000 Computer System imported by the appellants for the concessional rate of customs duty under Project Import Heading No. 84.66 (I) (A) of the Customs Tariff. The appellants were an existing unit engaged in the manufacture of different goods such as Digital Clocks, Display Element, Computing Electronics Scale, etc. They imported the Computer System and applied for registration under Project Import. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected their request on the ground that the documents produced indicated that the computer was meant to be used for line testing of the products and that it did not directly contribute to the substantial expansion of the production capacity. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector, Customs on various grounds including the use of computer as disclosed by the appellants ...

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant is a manufacturer of food and food products which are packed in tin containers. In the Price List the appellant referred to and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification 34/83, dated 1-3-1983. Price list was approved denying the appellant the benefit of notification and this order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).Hence the present appeal.2. Under the notification, Government exempted goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table to the notification and falling under Chapter No. of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, specified in column (2) of the Table from so much of the duty of excise as is equivalent to the duty of excise leviable on such specified goods under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, with reference to that part of the value thereof which represents the cost of metal containers in which the specified goods are packed at the time of their removal from the factory. The language of the notification has a simple...

Rajasthan Alloys and Steel (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT471TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Rajasthan Alloys & Steel (P) Ltd. the matter relates to the retrospective effect of exemption Notification No. 265/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of rail clips which were classifiable under Heading No.7302.90 of the new Central Excise Tariff. In Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 relating to small scale exemption, goods falling under Heading No. 7302.20 were covered. There was however no Heading No. 7302.20. Earlier exemption was available to goods falling under Heading No. 7302.90 but it does not find any mention in Notification No. 175/86-C.E. Under a subsequent Notification No.265/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986 the Heading No. 7302.20 was substituted by Heading No. 7302.90. This amending Notification was applicable only from the date of issue i.e. 24-4-1986. Realising that as a consequence of switch over to the new Central Excise Tariff there have been some mistakes in the Notification issued on 1-3-19...

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT785TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12/13-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur by which he has disallowed the Modvat credit on capital goods Rs. 32,00,151.80 under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has also imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellants, herein. The appellants manufacture polyester staple fibre and nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn. They submitted a declaration under Rule 57T of Central Excise Rules. The department found that the appellants had taken the abovesaid Modvat credit for the period from April, 1994 to June, 1994 on the electrical goods of Chapter 85, namely, load power supply, panels, cables, junction box, transformers, printed circuits and other items or Chapter and of Chapter 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, namely master cord station monitor controller I/P assembly controller resistance, I/P cord as mentioned in the annexure to the show cause notice, which were not used...

Smt. Shashi Mangla Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1988-89 is directed against order of Dy. CIT(A), Rohtak, refusing to rectify his earlier order dt. 21st January, 1991, under s. 154 of the IT Act.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessment of the assessee under s. 143(3) was made on 29th March, 1990, on net income of Rs. 52,948. The said assessment was challenged in appeal before learned Dy. CIT(A), Rohtak, who disposed of the same vide order dt. 21st January, 1991. On three grounds relevant in these proceedings, the learned Dy. CIT(A) passed the following order : (a) On 4th ground of appeal raised before him relating to disallowance of Rs. 4,000 out of total expenditure of Rs. 22,408 under the head "Travelling and conveyance expenses", the learned Dy. CIT(A) agreed with AO and dismissed the appeal with the following observations : '4.4 I have gone through the details of travelling expenses. These expenses include the hotel expenses in respect of the assessee's husband...

Sandeep Dhawan Vs. Sita Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996RLR434

A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) [ED. facts : One Dc Duggal became tenant of suit premises in 1963. He gave it on license to Jagdish in 1963 who started partnership business with S.N. Dhawan, Sita Ram and Satish. It was dissolved after 11/2 years. Jagdish filed suit in 1965 against Dugal claiming that he was tenant. Suit was dismissed and so was appeal. Then in 1977, Duggal sued Jagdish & Sita Ram for possession on the basis of license. S.N. Dhawan was not imp leaded as he was not in possession. Suit was decreed. In the Execution, S.N. Dhawan filed objections alleging that after firm was dissolved, he was doing business in the premises all these years and has become owner by adverse possession. Respondent filed a statement of S.N. Dhawan dt. 28.8.65 in the Court in which he had deposed that Jagdish was in possession of the premises and that he was only a casual visitor to the premises in dispute after Sept., 1964. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 argued before me that if the Objector Dh...