Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

i.C.B. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT239TriDel

1. These are two appeals - one filed by M/s. ICB Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. ICB'), and the other filed by M/s.Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Indian Sugar'), being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original dated 28-12-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. As both the appeals arise out of the common Order-in-original, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the excisability and dutiability of the two Hor-ton Spheres fabricated, installed and erected for Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) vessels/tanks at the site premises of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), near Ankleshwar in the State of Gujarat. These Horton Spheres were part of the LPG Recovery Plant for whose construction the contract on turn key basis had been given by the ONGC to M/s. ICB. With regard to the Horton Spheres, M/s. ICB gave a sub-contract to M/s. Indian Sugar. Sect...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT390TriDel

1. In this appeal the order of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 8-10-1996 has been challenged.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had remanded the case for adjudication by the jurisdictional Additional/Dy. Commissioner on the ground that Assistant Commissioner was not competent to decide cases involving Modvat credit claims above Rs. 50,000/-.2. Commissioner has prayed for quashing of the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted the provisions of law as well as failed to appreciate of the facts of the case.3. Arguing the case of the Department Shri Jahngir Singh, JDR stated by three different orders, Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur had adjudicated Modvat claims of M/s. J.K. Textile, M/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. and two claims of Shri Ram Rayons disallowing Modvat claims of the three assessees and imposed penalties on them. In all the cases the amounts involved in Modvat claim exceeded Rs. 50,000/-. By ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gadodia Electronics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT539TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of colour video monitors under the old Central Excise Tariff. The respondents M/s. Gadodia Electronics Ltd. at the time of the clearance of their above named products paid Central Excise Duty under Item No, 37BB of the Tariff. Subsequently, they applied for refund on the ground that the colour video monitors were correctly classifiable under Item No. 68 of the said Tariff. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, relying upon the Tariff Advice No. 37/84, dated 6-8-1984 issued from File No. 151/5/82-CX-4 by the Central Board of Excise & Customs held that the video monitors were rightly classifiable under Item No. 37BB of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise {Appeals), New Delhi, observed that the video monitor was not capable of recording any sound or image and was only a display device. He agreed with the contention of M/s. Gadodia Electronics Pvt. ...

Lalit Mohan Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)570; 1997CriLJ4055; 1998(1)Crimes221; 68(1997)DLT482; 1997(42)DRJ583

Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The petitioners Lalit Mohan and Harish Chander have filed these habeas corpus petitions in this Court questioning their detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. It appears from the ground of detention, which is at page 58 of Cr.W. 214/97, that Lalit Mohan was acting as a Flight Attendant in the Ambassador Sky Chef for the last ten years and was on duty for loading and unloading trolleys in the aircraft on 8/9.7.1996. It is stated in para 6 of the grounds of detention that Harish Chander was working as a Flight Attendant with Ambassador Sky Chef for the last eight years and on 9.7.1996 he was on duty on the high loader of the business class and the driver of the High loader was Mahinder Singh Hada. These two persons Lalit Mohan and Harish Chander being Flight Attendant were alleged to be involved in removing of the catering trolleys in which gold was hidden and had removed such trolleys in the past. They...

Varyam Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)568; 1997CriLJ4053; 67(1997)DLT934; 1997(42)DRJ467

Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The petitioner Varyam Singh, who was holding passport No. A-0330155, was intercepted near the exit gate of the Indira Gandhi International Airport while he was coming out from the red channel after giving a declaration. Varyam Singh was holding a ticket for the sector Delhi-Frankfurt-Delhi and Emirates ticket for Delhi-Dubai Frankfurt. He had with him two pieces of checked in baggage and one hand carried black colour brief case. He was accompanied by Ranbir Singh who was holding passport No. S-242700, who was also intercepted near the exit gate of the Indira Gandhi International Airport while he was walking through the green channel. He was carrying one checked in suit case in one hand and in one hand a brief case. Both of them were asked to declare whether they had carried any gold from Frankfurt to which both of them replied in the negative.(2) After their being intercepted, they were taken to the Custom Preventive Room and in the presence of independent witnes...

Ajit Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)469; 68(1997)DLT280; 1997(42)DRJ522

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The very first month of the year 1993 saw the appellant convicted and sentenced under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Though no time was lost by him in filing the appeal, we let years slip by. The long and dreary, wait within the high walls and iron gates of prison, in the meanwhile, must have made his life grow insipid and lose its relish. Was it not Oscar Wilde who said in The Ballad of Reading Gaol:(2) I know not whether laws be right, Or whether laws be wrong; All that we know who lie in gaol Is that each day is like a year, A year whose days are long. And what if now I acquit? And if I do so, and that is what I do propose to do, what about his withered years and shattered dreams(3) Let me introduce the main character, the prosecutrix for she occupies the centre-stage. The lady, let us call her Meena Devi for that is the name by which she is known, is not only married but a mother too. On February 9, 1992, after having weathered more than eightee...

Dayanita Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)942; 68(1997)DLT45; 1997(42)DRJ686

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff claiming herself to be the co-owner of the property being No.B-68, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi along with defendants 1 to 4, has sought partition of her 1/5th undivided share in the said property. She has also claimed rendition of accounts from defendant No. 1 and defendants 5 to 8. The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plot of land being No.B-68, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi was initially booked and purchased by her father late Kanwar Mahinderpal Singh in the year 1958 from M/s. Dlf Housing & Construction Private Limited; that prior to the execution of the said deed, Kanwar Mahinderpal Singh was married to defendant No. 1 in April 1960 and he, thereforee, requested M/s. Dlf Housing & Construction Private Limited to execute the sale deed in favor of the said defendant. Sale deed was, accordingly, executed in favor of defendant No. 1 on 12th May, 1965 and registered on 17th May, 1965 Kanwar Mahinderpal Singh died on 4th April, 1981. It is all...

Amarnath Harbans Lal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, J: 1. The complainant is a partnership concern and the present complaint has been filed through its partner Mr. Harbans Lal. The firm is dealing in vegetable oils and as commission agent, including supplying and distribution of vegetable oils to different parties throughout the country. The firm had obtained an Open Marine Policy initially for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) for the period 20th August 1990 to 19th August 1991. On 12.6.91, one tanker No. RJ-14-G-0702 was loaded with 1208 Kgs. of mustard oil at Ghasana (Rajasthan) and the same was to be carried to Amingaon (Assam). The invoice price of the oil was Rs. 3,42,468/- which in various documents on record has been recorded a rounded off to Rs. 3,42,000/-. GR No. 535 dated 12.6.91 was issued by the carrier M/s. Ravi Transport Services. The tanker met with an accident near Gokulavas Khandia (Rajasthan) on 14.6.91. The tanker was overturned and was badly damaged. Some of the oil leaked from its compartments ...

Modi Cement Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT378TriDel

1. This appeal with cross-objection arises from the order-in- original dated 2-1-1995 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Raipur.2. By the impugned order, the ld. Addl. Collector has directed to pay/reverse Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,53,369/- said to have been wrongly availed/taken during the period May, 1987 to April, 1990 and October, 1990 to February, 1991 under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Rules. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is alleged in the show cause notice dated 9-4-1992 issued to the appellants contravention of Rule 57D(1) of Central Excise Rules in as much as they did not use 16086.92 MT of chemicals falling under Chapter Sub-heading 2806.90 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 in the manufacture of final product for which it was brought in the factory and took credit on the aforesaid quantity of gypsum. On the plea that this quantity had been lost in t...

Capital Rubber Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-X, New Delhi, dt. 11th March, 1996, mainly on the ground of not treating Capital Rubber Industries as a partnership concern prior to 1985 which purchased a plot No. 327, Modern Industrial Estate, Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and not allowing the deduction of Rs. 2,11,314 made to HUDA in 1992 as part of cost of improvements while computing the capital gains as also for charging interest under ss. 234B and 234C.2. In this case, the assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 19,33,940. A revised return was filed on 15th October, 1993, declaring total income of Rs. 23,25,300. Another revised return was filed on 11th January, 1995, declaring a total income of Rs. 21,10,930. The AO observed that during the year, the only income of the assessee-firm was on account of long-term capital gain which had arisen due to sale of an industrial plot to its sister concern namely, Relax Footwears (P) Ltd. He further o...