Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments

Carmel Sanchez Gracia Vs. Customs, New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(42)DRJ660

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Sections 132 and 135(a) of Customs Act, 1962 Sections 20, 23 r/w Sections 28 of Ndps Act, 1985 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with regard to violations of Sections 135 of Customs Act and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh or in default thereof a further R.I. of six months for offence U/S 20(ii) Ndps Act to undergo a similar sentence for the offence U/Section 23 r/w Section 28 of Ndps Act. The facts in brief leading to the impugned judgment are as under: (2) The appellant on the night between 4/5 June, 1993 was to leave Delhi for Bangkok by Thai International Flight No. TG-316 and was apprehended at the Delhi Airport. At that time, the appellant was carrying one small bag which was tied with the wheel of the trolley in her hand apart from two other bags which had been checked in. On being asked by t...

Mira Lall and Son (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines an ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this miscellaneous application are that the complainant, which is an export house, booked two consignments with opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e. Lufthansa German Airlines and Customer Relations Cargo of the said airlines for being delivered to Ceskoslowenska Obchodni Banka Delopotckeroz Bratislava (formerly CSFR). The goods are stated to have been delivered without making payment in contravention of the direction of the consignor and, accordingly, the present complaint was filed for the recovery of Rs. 19,65,874/- on various counts. In the written statement filed by opposite party 1 it was, inter alia, stated that it was Czechoslovak Airlines which was responsible for release of the consignment under the two airways bills dated 4.1.1992 and 22.6.1992 and, therefore, the said airlines was a necessary party to the present complaint. The said necessary party, having not been impleaded, it was pleaded, the complaint was li...

Collector of Cus. Vs. Murugappa Chettiar Research

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT439TriDel

1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 23-5-1990 of Collector (Appeals).2. The Respondents imported one Super Vacuum Packing machine and sought exemption under Notification No. 70/81. This exemption was denied to them by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the practice is to extend the benefit of Notification No. 70/81 only to the public funded Research Association and rules and regulations forwarded by the Respondent do not indicate in clear terms that they are not engaged in commercial activities. They are receiving fees and charges for the service rendered by them. He also held that goods under importation cannot be considered scientific and technical instrument apparatus.Collector (Appeals) held that the fees and charges are only by way of reimbursement on expenses incurred and set aside the impugned order of the Asstt. Collector holding also that no reasons at all are given by the Asstt. Collector in support of his contention nor is there any ...

Addon Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT592TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the appellant. There is, however, a letter from the appellant praying for decision on merits in their absence on the basis of their appeal memo. Accordingly we have heard Shri A.K.Agarwal, SDR and perused the records.2. The controversy involved in the present matter is whether the electric horns manufactured by the assessee for use in the four wheeler and two wheeler motor vehicles are to be classified under Chapter 87 relating to motor vehicles or under Heading 85.12 which relates to electrical lighting or signalling equipment (excluding articles of Heading No. 85.39) windscreen wipers, defrosters and demisters of a kind used for cycles or motor vehicles. We observe that the lower appellate authority in arriving at his conclusion for classification of the product under tariff Heading 85.12 has placed reliance on page 1349 of Explanatory Notes to HSN which includes, inter alia, horns, sirens and other electrical sound signalling appliances. The lower appella...

Moti Lal Sharma Vs. L.i.C. of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Moti Lal Sharma, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, obtained Jeevan Dhara Policy from LIC in his own name in the year 1989. One of the special features of the said policy was that the amount paid was exempted from income tax under Section 80, CCA. In the Finance Bill for the year 1992-93, the Government of India decided not to treat the surrender value under the Jeevan Dhara Policy as income receipt during the year 1992-93, in case the policy was surrendered to the respondent Corporation and payment was made by the respondent upto 30th September, 1992 only. The complainant surrendered the said policy on 14.8.92 along with the prescribed form and completed the necessary formalities. The complainant paid several visits to the office of opposite party, but to no purpose. He also wrote to the opposite party who got a reply filed on 13.10.92. The reply was to the effect that surrender value of the policy amounting to Rs. 1,36,548/had been sent by LIC Br...

Voltas Limited Vs. Bharat Bhushan Khattar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Khattar, complainant, for short, purchased a 305 litres Voltas Refrigerator for Rs. 13,100/-on 28.5.93. The fridge was manufactured by M/s. Voltas Limited, opposite party No. 1 and purchased from authorised dealer M/s. City Place opposite party No 2. The case of the complainant was that the fridge was not working satisfactorily and it started giving trouble within less than two months of its purchase. The complainant lodged a number of complaints from time to time from 1.7.93 onwards. On 21.3.95 the fridge completely stopped working. On the complaint made to the manufacturer, the mechanic of M/s. Dyna Refrigeration, another authorised dealer of the manufacturer, arrayed as opposite party 3 was sent. He took away the fridge for repairs to the workshop. The compressor was changed and for the said repairs, the opposite party 3 charged Rs. 3,668/-which were paid under protest on 12.4.95. The case of the complainant further was that the compre...

Z.A. Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT306TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 31-7-1992. The issue involved is whether the process purported to be carried out by the appellants is covered by Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of organic surface active products and preparations for use as soap in the form of cakes and surface active preparations like powder falling under sub-heading No.3420.20 and 3420.90. According to the appellants sometimes the cakes/powders get damaged in transit and the wrappers in which they are packed also get deteriorated and such goods are received back from their dealers. The appellants received them back in terms of Rule 173H for repair and reconditioning of cakes and changing of wrappers. In the case of powder only wrappers are changed. In the case of other goods repairs are accounted for in Form V prescribed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Information in Form D-...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Best and Crompton Engg. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT149TriDel

1. Matter is called. Shri V.K. Mehra, Representative for the respondent company prayed for adjournment on the ground that their Counsel was not able to attend today. We do not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter on the issue involved in these matters. Respondents herein manufactured marine pumps falling under erstwhile TI30A. In the classification list filed by the respondents on 15-2-1984 they declared that marine pumps were used for handling sea water and claimed the benefit of Notifications 57/78-C.E. and 132/84-C.E. as also 55/86-C.E. The said Notifications grant benefit of nil rate of duty provided the pump is primarily designed for handling water. On the technical aspects there is no controversy that it is a centrifugal pump and it is a power driven pump.3. Contention of the appellant-Collector is that the marine pump manufactured by the respondents is not primarily designed for handling water. Hence the benefit of the aforesaid Notification is proposed to be denied to t...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Samaiya Organics (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT409TriDel

1. By the captioned appeal, the appellant has assailed the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals) in which the ld. Collector (Appeals) held that since in the respondents' case, ethyl alcohol is procured from distillery situated outside, proviso to para b(ii) is not applicable in their case. The Collector (Appeals), further, observed that among the conditions laid down in para b(ii) of the Notification No. 231/87 one condition is in respect of purchases of ethyl alcohol from another unit, the other condition is in respect of integrated unit and as such only one condition is required to be fulfilled in order to be eligible for grant of money credit under the Notification, which as per facts stated by the respondents are fulfilled. The ld. Collector i (Appeals) therefore, held that" I am of the view that they are eligible for money credit under the scheme envisaged under Notification No. 231/87, dated 1-10-1987." 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the m...

Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT230TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 19-7-1991.2. Ld. counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the refining of vegetable non-specified fixed vegetable oils and have been availing the benefit of Notification No. 262/86, dated 24-6-1986 during the material period.3. As per this Notification such oils are exempted from payment of whole of duty manufacture from refined vegetable oils by solvant extractive process and a certificate from the designated officer of the Directorate of Vanaspati to the effect that the oils have been extracted by solvant method is produced within the time allowed by the Assistant Collector.4. The Assistant Collector has issued the present Show Cause Notice and confirmed the demand on the ground that such a certificate had not been produced. The Collector (Appeals) also rejected their appeal on the ground that such certificate had been produced within the time allowed.5. However they have a...