Delhi Court October 1997 Judgments

BerThe Djakaridja Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)888; 72(1998)DLT161; 1998(44)DRJ33

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated August 17, 1994 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. (2) The appellant is a foreign national. On May 22, 1990 the appellant came to the I.G.I. Airport and presented his passport issued at Abidjan to the Immigration Officer for the purpose of immigration clearance as he was to board Turk ish Airways Flight No. TK-575 for Istanbul. The Immigration Officer entertained a suspicion about the authenticity of the passport and referred the matter to Inspector Sushil Kumar (Public Witness-7). On investigation the passport...

Aeroflot Soviet Airlines Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Aeroflot Soviet Airlines, complainant for short, was registered owner of L.G.V. Toyota Coaster Diesel Delux bearing Registration number DEP-1272, 1988, Model. The vehicle was in private use of the complainant and it was comprehensivehy insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, hereinafter refered to as the opposite party for the period 20.5.1990 to 19.5.1991 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/including accessories namely AC and Casset Stereo. On 25.9.1990 while taking the crew to Hotel Maurya Sheraton, the bus was gheraod by a mob at the crossing of Rangpura Chowk near Mahipalpur. The mob de-flated the tyres of the bus, forced the driver and crew to come down and cause extensive damages by the throwing stones and ultimately set fire to the same. A report was lodged on the same day with P.S. Mahipulpur under Section 436, IPC. Claim was lodged with the opposite party on the following day. The complainant in course of time su...

Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT475TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, the issue for our consideration is whether the goods described in the B/E as "WHB - U Bend Elements" were classifiable as pipes and tubes for the boilers or as parts of the general use vide Section Note 2(a) of Section XV of the Tariff.2. The appellants imported "U-Bend Elements" and got the goods cleared on the basis of the declared classification under Item No. 73.17/19 of the erstwhile Customs Tariff. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods were classifiable as pipes and tubes for the boiler. Refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector of Customs on the ground that the goods in question were specifically covered by Heading No. 73.20 of the Tariff and there was no merit in the claim. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay confirmed the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Customs on the ground that the appellants had failed to produce the documentary evidence to...

Delhi Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT608TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi dated 20-7-1994 directing recovery of Rs. 1,76,375.70 availed of as Modvat credit by the appellants.2. Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of "Maaza", a fruit pulp based drink falling under Chapter sub-heading 2202.90 and aerated waters falling under Chapter sub-headings 2202.12, 2201.11 and 2201.12 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also taking Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of their final products. The final product "Maaza" was exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 87/91, dated 11-9-1991. As on 11-9-1991 appellants had in stock 75,240 bottles filled with "Maaza", 47,59,488 pieces of crown corks, 190 units of flavouring essence and 11,060 kgs. of sugar. On the inputs lying in stock and on inputs used in the manufacture of the final product "Maaza" appellants had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 2,92,709.83. On 13-11-1991 they debited...

Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1153TriDel

1. The present appeal arises from the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 19-11-94. The issue involved relates to Modvat credit. By the impugned order, the order of the Assistant Collector directing recovery of two amounts namely Rs. 18,14,462.35 and Rs. 6,63,880.50 was confirmed.2. Appearing for the appellants Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order had disposed of two show cause notices, one dated 3-5-88 demanding a duty of Rs. 6,63,880.50 for the period October, 1987 to March, 1988 and a second show cause notice, dated 25-4-88 demanding a duty of Rs. 18,14,462.35 for the period between March, 1986 and September, 1987.3.1 Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the benefit of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. During the years 1986-87 and 1987-88, appellants had declared...

Vaishnow Shoes Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC367Tri(Delhi)

1. After hearing for sometime with reference to the Stay application filed by the appellants we felt that the main matter itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after dispensing with the pre-deposit of amount required to be deposited for the purposes of hearing the appeal.3. Duty was demanded in denying the exemption in terms of S.S.I.Notification No. 1/93 on the ground that the appellants did not submit proof of export i.e. S.T. Form 'H' under Rule 14A. According to Rule 14A any person who has removed excisable goods for export in bond in accordance with provision of Rule 13 or 14 fails to export or to furnish proof of such export to the satisfaction of proper authority in the manner laid down in any notification under Rule 12 he shall upon a written demand being made by the proper officer forthwith pay the duty leviable to on such goods also shall be liable to a penalty which may subject to maximum of two thousand.4. We find in the instant case that th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Peacock Chemicals (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]241ITR305(Delhi)

ORDER1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') filed by the revenue seeking mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following two questions as questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in allowing the depreciation on trucks, gas cylinders and photo composing and type setting machine despite the fact of non-user of the said assets for business purposes during the year under consideration 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that delivery of movable property includes the user of the asset by the purchaser ?' 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petition must fail. It is not disputed that the business of the assessed in the relevant assessment year has been leasing...

Balvinder Singh Sodhi Vs. Mahender Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT472

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30th April, 1997 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the plaint of the petitioner on an application moved by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground of the same being barred by limitation. The learned Additional District Judge held that the plaint was instituted against a police officer beyond the three months period stipulated under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. (2) The petitioner had filed a suit for damages against respondent No. 1 who was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi; respondent No. 2, being Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Delhi Administration through the Lt. Governor, imp leaded as respondent No. 3. (3) The petitioner claims himself to be a person of repute, being President of the Traders' Association. He had a dispute with one Shri. H.C. Bagga, to whom he had let out a portion of his property. There was ...

Kanti Singh and ors. Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT419

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Plaintiffs have filed I.A. 498/97 under Section 151, Cpc alleging that they filed suit in 1990 for ejectment of the defendant from flat No. 14E, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, admeasuring about 930 sq. ft. and also for recovery of mesne profit/damages on the ground of lease of the flat having expired by efflux of time on February 25,1989. Defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement and the following issues have been framed : 1. Whether the tenancy of the defendant has come to an end on 25th of February, 1989 on account of efflux of time? 2.Whether the tenancy of defendant is properly terminated? 3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession of suit property? 4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get Rs. 4,10,130.00 towards past mesne profits till the date of the suit? 5.If decree of possession is passed in favor of the plaintiffs, at what rate the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits from the date of institution o...

Collector of Customs Vs. Moi Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT96TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The issue for our consideration is whether the machine imported by the respondents M/s.MOI Engineering Ltd. was eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as amended. The goods described in the Bill of Entry were Horizontal Form, Fill and Seal Machine. It is seen that subsequently the description was changed to High Speed Automatic Wrapping Machine. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay observed that the said machine was Horizontal Form, Fill and Seal Machine and it was not a simple wrapping machine. He disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus.referred to above. On appeal, Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay on the basis of the evidence produced before him held that the impugned machine was a High Speed Automatic Wrapping Machine for use in processing/packaging of food articles, (biscuits in the present case) and was accordingly eligible for benefit o...