Delhi Court August 1997 Judgments

Utpal Mishra Vs. Nicelai Christensen

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)929; 1997CriLJ4475; 1997(4)Crimes108; 68(1997)DLT311; 1997(42)DRJ713

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The respondent a Danish national, was intercepted at Airport by the Customs officer while he was leaving for Copenhagen on 22nd May 1996. The search of his luggage resulted in recovery of 975 grams of hashish. A complaint was filed by Customs Department through its Air Customs Officer Mr.Utpal Mishra Praying that the accused be tried and punished in accordance with law. The accused was charged for offences under Sections 21 and 23 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the Act') for being in illegal and unlawful possession of 975 grams of hashish which he attempted to unsuccessfully export out of the country.(2) By the impugned judgment the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused mainly on the ground of non compliance of Section 42 of the Act holding that the non compliance of the said provision vitiates the prosecution. All other contentions urged on behalf of the accused were rejected by the trial Court. The Customs Department is...

Mohd. Ameer Deen Habib Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)869; 1997CriLJ4581; 1997(4)Crimes303; 68(1997)DLT426; 1997(42)DRJ562; 1997RLR518

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) MOHD. Ameer Deen Habib (hereinafter referred to as Ameer) and S.S.O. Seyed Arif (hereinafter called Arif) are Indian citizens though presently residing in Dubai. Both are facing arrest in a complaint pending in Delhi under sections 8(1), 8(2) read with section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) read with Central Government Notification No. F-1/3/73 dated 15.6.1977 and in yet another complaint pending in Mumbai for non-compliance of summons issued under section 40 of the Fera, 1973. As far as Ameer is concerned, besides the two matters noticed above, he is wanted in yet another complaint which is under section 61(2)(ii) read with section 56 of the Fera, 1973. He is also an accused in what is now known as 'Hawala case' pertaining to First Information Report No. RC1(A)/95 Acu (VI) dated 4.3.1995. It is pending before the learned Special Judge Delhi. In all the matters noticed above, non-bailable warrants stand issued.(2) T...

Y. Krishna Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that three letters sent to complainant's address by Speed Post, were received late resulting in considerable inconvenience and tension. The particulars of these letters are as under:Sl. NoLetter No.Sent fromDate of DespatchDated of Recpt1SP/C/9574/ 2650/942GPO Bombay23.5.199426.5.1994 According to Op 28.5.19942SP/C/659Speed Post Intl. Airport Bombay12.6.199415.6.19943SP/C/664Marine Line Post Office Bombay4.8.19948.8.94The complainant took up the matter with Manager, Speed Post Office, Gole Market, New Delhi. After several reminders he advised me complainant to correspond with Officer Incharge, Speed Post, GPO Bombay. The complainant accordingly wrote to the Officer Incharge as advised but there was no response. He also wrote to Mr. W.S. Janabandhu, Manager Speed Post Centre, Bombay Airport, Bombay. The complainant was informed that three refund orders of Rs. 30/- each were issued to the respective booking ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Geetham Cassettes Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT49TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, the matter relates to the interpretation of Notification No.93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as before its amendment under Notification No. 115/90-Cus., dated 20-3-1990. The goods involved are Four Track Duplicating Recorders with the necessary configurations. The goods were assessed under Heading No. 8520.90 which covered Magnetic tape recorders and other sound recording apparatus, whether or not incorporating a sound reproducing device. The respondents M/s. Geetham Cassettes Pvt. Ltd., Cochin, after the clearance of the goods filed a refund claim on the ground that they were eligible for a concessional rate of Customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1996, as amended by Notification No. 204/86-Cus. dated 7-3-1986.The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the exemption covered only the cinemato...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT122TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 29-5-1991.2. Ld. DR stated that the main issue involved in this case was as to whether the sulphuric acid which was cleared by the appellants without payment of duty was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 inasmuch as sulphuric acid is also used for recovery of silver which is exempt from Central Excise duty. It was the department's contention that the Collector had erred in allowing them the benefit; hence the appeal.3. Ld. Counsel stated that the respondents are basically manufacturers of zinc and silver is only a by-product. The same issue relating to the same product, and the same notification between the same parties was subject matter of the Tribunal's order reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 155 (Tribunal), This order gives in detail the process of manufacture and use of sulphuric acid therein and has allowed the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 as this is also used for ...

Saboo Mineral Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT498TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 5-12-1991.2. The appellants have forwarded written submissions dated 4-8-1997. We have therefore, perused the records including the above submissions and heard the ld. DR.3. The appellants have stated that they are an SSI unit manufacturing cement duly registered as such with the State Industries Department.4. The issue involved is whether they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 23/89, dated 1-3-1989 which provided reduced rates to Mini-Cement Plants up to the capacity of 200 TPD (VSK) and 300 TPD (Rotary) in addition to the SSI Exemption.5. The benefit has however been denied to them on the ground that they were required to produce certificate of the licensed capacity from the Director of Industries of State Government or the Development Commissioner, Union Government and that the certificate of Director of Industries dated 21-4-1990 issued for the period 26-3-1990 to 31-3-...

Kanoria Chemicals and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commr. C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT301TriDel

1. Lower authorities in the present case disallowed Modvat credit as capital goods on the following items : (i) Malic Resins, Electric wire and cables, Hubs and Blades, Switch gear and HRC Fuses.2. Being aggrieved by the above findings, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.3. Appearing for the appellants Shri A.P. Mathur, ld. counsel submits that, though, the appellants have filed the appeal along with the stay petition but since the goods on which Modvat credit as capital goods have been denied are covered by the orders of the Tribunal, therefore, he prays that not only the stay petition should be accepted but the appeal itself should be decided. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR has no objection. With the consent of both the parties we proceeded to hear the appeal and decided the appeal after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit.4. Shri A.P. Mathur, ld. counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the items on which Modvat credit have been denied ar...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Sports Club of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]230ITR777(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. These two references under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, arising out of the asst. yr. 1972-73 made at the instance of the Revenue and the assessed both seek the opinion of the High Court on the following questions of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that rent receipts from the members to whom the rooms were let out by the assessed-club along with other facilities were not assessable to income-tax on the doctrine of mutuality Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there should be deduction of a portion of the normal overhead expenditure incurred by the assessed against the royalty of Rs. 1,16,000 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from swimming pool and stadium at Bombay should be taxed under the head 'Business' and not under the head 'Income from house property' ?' 2. So far as question...

Shama Magazine Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]232ITR430(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessed arising out of the asst. yr. 1975-76 seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of hotel expenses of partners amounting to Rs. 14,663 in the computation of the business income of the assessee-firm for the asst. yr. 1975-76 ?'2. The expenses in question were incurred by the partner of the firm. The Tribunal has disallowed the expenses which exceeded the ceiling prescribed by r. 6D of the IT Rules, 1962. The contention of the assessed was that the ceiling was not applicable to a partner himself incurring the expenses and the partner will not be covered by the expression 'an employee or any other person'. We do not see any reason to restrict the meaning of the expression 'an employee or any other person' so as to exclude a partner the...

Cds Gujral Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)146; 1997(2)ARBLR543(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT631; 1997(43)DRJ8

Vijender Jain, J. (1) The petitioner filed the petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 3 of the Interest Act for making the award rule of the Court. Award was made by the Arbitrator, Mr.A P Paracer, Additional Director General (Retd.) C.P.W.D. on 23.12.1993. The respondent filed their objections against the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrator entered the reference on 10.4.1987.(2) Learned counsel for the respondent Ms.Ansuya Salwan, has challenged the whole award. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is to Claim No. 3 under the award. Ms.Salwan says that award of a sum of Rs. 1,12,185.40 paise to the petitioner-claimant on account of extra expenditure incurred towards rise in wages of labour for the quantum of work after the expiry of stipulated contract period was erroneous. She has contended that Arbitrator has completely ignored that under the provisions of the contract entered into...