Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sub-judge

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)321; 66(1997)DLT50; 1997(41)DRJ268; (1997)117PLR1; 1997RLR254

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petition revolves around Order 16 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its ambit and scope However, first the facts. (2) In a suit entitled Nar Singh v. Shashi Kiran summons under Order 26 Rules 1 and 5 of the Code were issued in the name of Assistant Assessor & Collector, House Tax Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. West Zone 'with complete file of house tax regarding property No. 633, Shakurpur, Delhi now known as Rishi Nagar'. In response to the said summons, Baldev Ram, Assistant Assessor & Collector appeared in court on July 28, 1992. He entered into the witness box as Public Witness 12 and as he had not brought the original record summoned from him, the learned trial Judge invoked the provisions of Order 16 Rule 12, imposed upon him a fine of Rs. 500.00 , and as he failed to deposit the fine so imposed; ordered issuance of warrants of attachment. It is this order which is under challenge. (3) The attack was two pronged. It was said that the...

Goenka Engg. and Ind. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT263TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 7-12-1990. The appellants imported a consignment of parts of High Pressure Charging Sets. Since the appellants required the goods urgently, they got the goods cleared by paying normal duty as per Customs Tariff, though they claimed that they had mentioned the fact of Notification in the Bill of Entry. Subsequently however they filed a refund claiming benefit of exemption Notification No. 155/86. The claim was rejected by Asstt.Collector. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order on the ground that a certificate required under Notification 155/86 was not produced at the time of original assessment.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that a certificate was produced subsequently and in fact they had applied for a certificate before arrival of the goods. In this connection, he relies upon Apex Court judgment in the case of Sahuwala Cylinders Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise -1991 (54) E.L.T. 135 which relied on Apex Court judgmen...

Collector of Customs Vs. Dadlani Silk Stores

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT116TriDel

1. These appeals were once heard for sometime along with a number of other appeals but during the course of hearing these appeals were delinked from the batch. Other appeals were decided by Final Order No.C/905 to 920/96-B, dated 1-10-1996 of a larger Bench. That order was passed following the decision of the same Larger Bench in the appeal relating to K. Mohan & Co. decided on 23-9-1996 which is reported in 1996 (17) R.L.T. 31.2. Common question arising in these and those appeals is regarding applicability of Notification No. 33/81 to the subject imports. The Larger Bench held that the matter in issue requires fresh consideration after allowing the importer to adduce evidence in regard to the matter in controversy. Accordingly orders were set aside and the cases were remanded.3. Same result should normally follow in these appeals also but for another contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the respondent in these appeals. Respondent in these appeals is M/s. Dadlani Silk Stor...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Samitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT650TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 6-11-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, the matter relates to the classification of the paper covered (insulated) copper and aluminium strips. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ranchi, who had adjudicated the matter had held that the paper covered (insulated) copper and aluminium strips were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, following the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 10, and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Devidayal Non-Ferrous (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 537 (Tribunal), had set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ranchi and allowed the appeal of the appellants M/s.Samitan Electro Powers (P) Ltd. (responde...

Premier Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT385TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Premier Mills Ltd., Hosur, being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 26-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore. The matter relates to the duty liability on the cylindrical tubes with pentagonal pores, after they had been subjected to the chemical designing process. The appellants were engaged in the printing of fabrics. They imported plain cylindrical tubes with pentagonal pores. The cylindrical tubes, though brought from outside, -if were subjected to the chemical designing process. The process adopted by the appellants had been given by the adjudicating authority in para 6 of his order. It is seen that the design required to be printed through the printing machine was formed on the film and the designs so formed were applied by sensitisation process with chemicals. The adjudicating authority had observed that transforming plain nickel rollers into designed nickel rollers amounted to a process of manufacture resulting in...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pepsu Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT730TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals). The ld. Collector (Appeals) had held as under :- "On going through the facts of the case and hearing the appellants their consultant, I hold that they definitely have a case. It is within the knowledge of the deptt. that two separate recording is being done by the appellants of the bars manufacture by them. To come to a factually correct accounting specially in view of the claim of the appellants, it would be proper to take into account the entire production, both the R.G.I's into consideration. Clandestine removal and intention to evade must be supported by evidence mere stating it to be so, does not satisfy the canons of law. In absence of investigations and lack of evidence disproves A.C.'s impugned order, benefit gets extended to the appellants. The impugned order is set aside, appeal is accepted and disposed of accordingly." 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are r...

Fine Marble and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC171Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 12-3-1987, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) disposed of a combined order-in-original which disposed of 3 appeals.The appellants originally filed only one appeal. Later, they have filed two supplementary appeals along with an application for condonation of delay in terms of the procedure of the CEGAT. The application for condonation was also heard along with these appeals. The delay in filing supplementary appeals is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing.2. The appellants imported 65 pieces of diamond blades said to be suitable for Carl Meyer SVN 60 Marble Cutting Machine size 4190 x 180 x 3.5 mm covered with segments of size 20 x 5 x 7 x 5 mm. This description is found on one of the Bill of Entries dated 23-9-1983, while the description in Bill of Entry dated 14th December, 1984 and 30th May, 1995 'Winter Diamond Blades'. The goods were assessed to duty under Heading No. 82.05...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT466TriDel

1. Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh by the captioned reference application has submitted that the following point of law arises out of the decision of the Tribunal's order No. A/1579/96-NB, dated 17-6-1996 : "Whether subsidiary gate passes issued on 31-3-1994 is a valid documents for availing modvat credit as per Notification No. 16/94-CE(NT), dated 30-3-1994, since the subsidiary gate passes ceases to be a prescribed document after 31-3-1994." 2. Shri V.R. Sethi, ld. DR appears for the appellant Commissioner whereas none appeared for the respondent. Not. No. 16/94-CE (NT), dated 30-4-1994 is represented below for proper appreciation: "In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Govt. hereby prescribes the documents specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed and issued under the authority of the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Central Excise Rules, 1944 specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of ...

M/S. Tilak Raj Mohan Lal Vs. the State

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These five appeals have been filed by M/s. Tilak Raj Mohan Lal Gali No. 1, Nai Wala Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Appeal No. 106/STT is for assessment year 1967-68, appeal No. 107/STT for the period 1st April, 1968 to 16th March, 1969, appeal No. 2055/STT for the period 17th March, 1969 to 31st March, 1969 appeal No. 2056/STT for the year 1969-70 and appeal No. 2057/STT for the year 1970-71 respectively.2. Appeals Nos. 106 and 107/STT had been filed as first revisions before the Commissioner, Sales Tax under s. 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax), Act, 1941 as then extended to the Union Territory of Delhi against two order of the Assistant Commissioner Shri R.K. Goswami both dated 31st July, 1972 but the same, after coming into force of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 which repealed the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 have been transferred to this Tribunal and treated as appeals. The other three appeals were filed under s. 43 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 against the consolidate...

Kamal Kishore Vs. State Through Delhi Administration

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997CriLJ2106

ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the orders on charge dated 22-7-1995 and charge dated 19-9-1995 passed by Mr. Ravinder Dudeja, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi framing charge against the petitioner under Ss. 356/379/34, IPC. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that one Mr. Mahesh Sahai Andley lodged an FIR with P. S. Lodhi Colony on 7-7-1992 alleging that he had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from Punjab National Bank and kept the same in his small black hand bag. He had further alleged that when he proceeded towards Lodhi Road Complex, some one came from behind him and snatched the bag. The police registered his FIR under S. 356/379/34, IPC against unknown person. After about five months of the incident, the police arrested two persons, namely Subhash and Vijendra. In their confessions/disclosure statements recorded by the police under S. 161, Cr.P.C., they disclosed the name of the present petitioner alleging that the petitioner was guarding them on the road while they snatche...