Delhi Court August 1997 Judgments

Collector of Customs Vs. New Electronics Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT690TriDel

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.A notice for today's hearing had been issued on 11-7-1997 and the notice was duly acknowledged by the respondents. In these circumstances, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondents.2. The Revenue filed these appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 12-1-1991. In the impugned order, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the load cells are specifically classified under Tariff Heading No. 90.31. Therefore, they are exempt from auxiliary duty in terms of the Notification No. 105/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989.3. Heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR who appeared on behalf of the appellants/Revenue. The Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that the Load Cell is of unique nature and not related to either measuring of checking of any parameters. These are not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 23/91 (Parallel Notification No. 105/89). The Collector of Customs, Bombay in Para 6 of his order hel...

Saraswati Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT86TriDel

1. The above captioned application for reference has been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following questions of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/219/97-NB, dated 27-1-1997 by which the applicants claim for Modvat credit of Rs. 1,06,844.60 p. taken on 19-11-1990,3-12-1990 and 25-12-1990 on the basis of authenticated photocopies of gate passes dated 2-7-1988, 31-12-1988 and 21-4-1990 respectively had been disallowed : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to Modvat credit of Rs. 1,06,844.60 p. on the basis of attested photocopies of gate passes issued by Range Superintendent after authentication of the same as the original gate passes were lost and that too during the period prior to 15th December 1992 when the circular/orders issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Financ...

Garware Plastics and Polyester Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT346TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Garware Plastics & Polyester Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of spares for polyester film metallising plant and their eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 172/89-Cus., dated 29-5-1989. The appellants had imported the spares for polyester film metallising plant and the goods were assessed to duty under Heading No. 9806 of the New Tariff read with Heading No.8477 of the said Tariff. Under Heading No. 98.06, all parts of the machinery, among others, classifiable under Heading No. 84.77 were classifiable. The importer filed bill of entry for and after the assessments and after the proper procedure was followed for warehousing the said goods. The parts of the machinery 'otherwise classifiable under Heading No. 84.77 came to be classifiable under sub-heading No.8477.90. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) took a view that the Customs' Officers at the warehouse was not competent to change the classification and that the importer the...

Foam Tek Systems Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT137TriDel

1. The appellants are alleged to have manufactured and cleared electric motors and cheese winding machines without following Central Excise procedures and without payment of duty during the period 11-4-1986 to 31-3-1987. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 4-6-1987 for the period from 4-12-1986 to 31-3-1987 by the Superintendent of Central Excise. Subsequently, however, a revised show cause notice dated 30-6-1988 covering the period from 11-4-1986 to 31-3-1987 was issued by the Additional Collector. This show cause notice mentions that it includes the period already covered in the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Additional Collector in his order demanded excise duty at standard rates for the clearance of goods during the period 1-4-1986 to 30-6-1986 in respect of cheese winding machines. He also confirmed differential duty on the value of electric motors and cheese winding machines which were cleared after Notification 46/81 was r...

Bansal Bros. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In an appeal filed, the assessee is aggrieved against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the penalty levied at Rs. 3,19,000 under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act is confirmed by him. Explaining the facts leading to imposition of penalty, Shri Predeep Dinodia, the learned AR submitted that the assessee is a small firm which has raised loans from certain relatives of the partners to whom interest was payable either annually or half yearly or monthly as per the agreement arrived at with them. The assessee has been paying/crediting the due interest on mutually agreed time intervals (Annexures to Form 26A - P. Nil of Paper Book). The amount of TDS in question at Rs. 8,062 was not only deducted but also deposited in the Treasury within the stipulated time. Harbouring under an impression that as in the case of salaries, a consolidated certificate is to be issued, it also furnished a similar certificate to each of the payees at the year end. In doing so, th...

Mohd. Jafar Vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)460; [1998]93CompCas717(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT340; 1997(42)DRJ647; (1998)118PLR60

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 10F of the Companies Act against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the Company Law Board, Northern Region Bench, New Delhi in Company Petition No. 449/17/95-CLB. (2) The respondent Company presented a petition before the Company Law Board under Section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 for confirmation of alteration of Clause (ii) of the Memorandum of Association of the Company for shifting the registered office of the Company from the National Capital Territory of Delhi to the State of Punjab as approved by special resolution passed at the Annual General Meeting held on 29.9.1995. The appellant is a member of the respondent Company holding 100 equity shares. He filed objections to the aforesaid petition filed by the respondent Company under Section 17 of the Companies Act. The Company Law Board heard the Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also for the Objector and the Assistant Registrar of Compa...

Salim Ahmed Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)458; 68(1997)DLT350; 1997(42)DRJ646

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner who was sentenced to imprisonment for life, has already undergone incarceration for more than 14 years. It appears that the Delhi Administration on the recommendations of the Sentence Revising Board has remitted the unexpired portion of the sentence subject to the condition that the executes a personal bond in the sum Rs. 10,000.00 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Delhi for keeping good behavior and maintaining peace during the unexpired portion of his sentence. (2) The petitioner says that he will never be able to enjoy the fruits of the order as he is not in a position to furnish sureties. He tells me that his long and dreary years of incarceration saw the death of his parents and severing of all contacts with the outside world, and that today he finds himself friendless and even devoid of financial means to even arrange for professional sureties who, unfortunately, still abound but for a hefty pr...

Bhupinder Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)822; 71(1998)DLT461; (1998)118PLR68

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioner got himself registered for allotment of MIG. flat under the Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989 floated by the respondent. In the month of November, 1996 the petitioner received the allotment-cum-demand letter informing him about allotment of flat No. 97, Sector 24 Pocket 23, Rohini, Delhi. The said letter of allotment also indicated that the total cost of the flat which was payable was Rs. 6,48,000.00 . The petitioner did not pay the disposal cost of the flat in terms of the letter of demand on the ground that essential services and basic facilities were not made available by the Dda and as such the flat was not habitable. Petitioner's further grievance is that the respondent arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of the flat vide letter dated 25.7.1997. (2) The question is whether the petitioner can be allowed to withhold payment of price of the flat unless and until essential services and amenities have been made available. In K. Bhattacharjee v. Dda, : 63(...

indag Rubber Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT559TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi dated 14-8-1991.2. Both the sides submitted that in this case, the issue involved namely the classification of a product in the nature of a prepared adhesive consisting of a mixture of rubber, organic solvents, etc.under Heading 35.06 has already been settled by the Tribunal's order in the case of Elgi Polytex Ltd., Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal) and the product in this case also being similar, this case may also be disposed of similarly.3. We find that the appellants have described their product called 'Universal Spray Compound' and its composition as follows:- Synaperene is a type of synthetic rubber. Zinc Oxide is an activator and insoluble sulphur are vulcanizing agent. CP-100 and Resorcinal formaldehyde (which are resins) act as tacifiers.4. They have also described the process of manufacture and use to the Department as follows :- "The neces...

Kamal Auto Engg. Works Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT344TriDel

1. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 27-11-1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals) rejecting the appellants' claim for clearance of their bonds for home consumption claiming the benefit of Notification No. 116/79. The facts of the case are that on 29-9-1984 M/s. Ruare S.P.A. shipped Ex Venice machine tools under Bill of Lading dated 29-9-1984 to India for exhibition in India International Trade Fair 1984 to be held at New Delhi between 14-11-1984 to 27-11-1984.While these machine tools were on highseas, the appellants entered into correspondence with the said supplier who was sending these goods for exhibition to purchase the same. The appellant after negotiation entered into contract dated 20-10-1984 for purchase of these goods with foreign suppliers through their Indian Agents. Thereafter, the appellants approached for a grant of import licence, which is otherwise necessary under the provisions of clause 3 of Import and Export Control Order, 1955. However such import lice...