Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 8 of about 118 results (0.009 seconds)Sri Ram Chemical Complex Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC16Tri(Delhi)
i) Whether the demand is barred by the period of limitation of 6 months in the absence of any suppression or mis-declaration; ii) Whether Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules under which duty has been demanded applies to the facts of the case; iii) Whether for the purpose of the explanation to Notification No. 176/77, the face value of the investment on plant and machinery is to be calculated on the basis of price paid by the manufacturer (appellant herein). M/s Indian Glue Corpn. were the manufacturers of animal glue falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff during the years 1974 to 79. They did not take out a central excise licence for manufacture of the goods as they were under the impression that it was- not an excisable commodity. Due to labour problems, they discontinued the manufacture of the goods and sold the factory to M/s. Sri Ram Chemical Complex (the appellants) who carried on manufacture without licence and without payment of duty. On the basis...
Tag this Judgment!Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC309Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeals in reference relate to the grant of exemption of duty, with reference to interpretation and applicability of Notification No.142/81, dated 8-7-1981 to the appellant, who are manufacturers of a variety of paper known as mill wrapper. Their contention is that mill wrapper is nothing but Kraft Paper, which is an unbleached variety of paper containing not less than 75% by weight of the pulp made from Bagasse. They contend that they have fulfilled the terms of the said Notification and are entitled for full exemption from the payment of the duty. Alternatively, they have contended that mill wrapper is always consumed captively and is not liable to duty under Notification No. 187/83-C.E., dated 9-7-1983 subject to the conditions set out therein. Yet if this plea is also not accepted, even so, mill wrapper manufactured and captively consumed inside the factory should be, charged to duty only at the rate of Rs. 900/- per MT + 5% SED which was the rate approved by the Department...
Tag this Judgment!Vivomed Labs. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC729Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeals Nos. 1 to 5, above, are directed against the order dated 26-9-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad. By this order, the Collector has demanded duty of Rs. 5,13,190.10 from the appellants, M/s. Sinkhai Synthetic & Chemicals and Rs. 7,66,499.80 from the appellants, M/s. Masiha Medica and Rs. 14,27,073.27 from the appellants, M/s. Vivomed Laboratories under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants under Rule 173Q of Central Excise. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed on appellant, Sami Khatib and Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant, Sohel Khatib under Rule 209A Central Excise Rules. The other order of the Collector against which the appeal No. E/2770/90-C has been preferred, is dated 10-4-1990 by which he had demanded a duty of Rs. 12,78,098.47 for the period from April, 1987 to February, 1989 which is subsequent to the period covered by the earlier o...
Tag this Judgment!Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Autho ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT636
S.B. Wad, J.(1) We had pronounced the operative order in this writ petition on 21.12.1990. The detailed reasons are as follows.(2) M/S, Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., the petitioners, are well known builders of Delhi. A land ad-measuring 2540 sq. meters was allotted to them by auction by (he D.D.A. on 810.1980. The auction was of a commercial plot in Jhandewalan block known as the Commercial Tower Plot. Petitioners bid for Rs. 9.82 crores was accepted and the petitioners paid a sum of Rs- 2.45,75,000.00 being 25 per cent of the bid amount that very day. Even after repeated opportunities by the D.D.A. and the Court only part of the amount has been paid and as on 31st July, 1990, a sum of Rs.8,12,68,798.00 is still unpaid by the petitioner. This amount includes part of the principal and interest for delayed payment. Through the interim orders of this Court the petitioners have got their plans approved and got the no-objection certificate for the construction. The complex will have ab...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Rolly Polly (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991RLR244
Mahinder Narain (1) This matter has been placed before me for passing order regarding deemed admission of documents in view of the fact that documents filed by the plaintiff have not been admitted/ denied by the defendants. (2) Mr. Suresh Arora, Advocate appearing for counsel for the defendants says that counsel has already sent a registered notice to the defendants intimating that they will withdraw from the case which notice has been served. However, no application for determination of the authority of the counsel has been filed as yet. It is said that it is being filed. Let such an application be filed within a week. (3) As regards deemed admission under Order 12 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my view there should not be any 'deemed admission' of documents in this case. This case has been filed by a bank against the defendants for recovery of money on the basis of accounts. Entries in the books of accounts have to be proved. As and when entries in the accounts are prove...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Century Textiles and Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC228
1. The issue in these appeals being common, they were taken up for hearing together. While Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. was represented by Dr. P.V. Jois, Advocate, M/s. Morarji Gokuldas Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. was not represented before us though Order No.l81/90-C dated 29-11-90 fixing today as the date of hearing had been sent to them also.2. Notification No. 195/86 dated 13-3-86 exempts inter alia Bleach Liquor. The notification does not define what is Bleach Liquor. The Revenue is relying on the definition of the term in the Condensed Chemical Dictionary - Tenth Edition - Revised by Gessner G. Hawley. The book at page 139 says that Bleach Liquor is Calcium Hypochlorite Solution. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether Sodium Hypochlorite is eligible for exemption as Bleach Liquor. The Department's Contention is that Bleach Liquor means only Calcium Hypochlorite. It does not cover Sodium Hypochlorite. The learned D.R.also relies on the meaning of the ter...
Tag this Judgment!India Jute and Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC188
1. These four appeals have been referred by the President, CEGAT, New Delhi for constituting a larger bench of five members to answer the question and settle the question of jurisdiction pertaining to matters of levy of cess on the Jute manufacturers for goods removed for export under B-l Bond as provided under Rules 12 and 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants had urged in their appeals before the East Regional Bench, Calcutta, that Rules 3 and 4 of the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules 1984, effective from 15-09-1984 cannot and do not travel beyond the Act and, therefore, the orders passed in appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, were liable to be set aside. The parties in dispute had submitted before the East Regional Bench, Calcutta, that the questions involved in these appeals were about the leviability of cess and rate of cess was not in dispute and both parties had submitted to the East Regional Bench that the matters were vested within the ju...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. O.C.M. (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC327Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the question involved is how to apply the tolerance allowed with regard to test results. On this depends the further question of classification of the goods in dispute and the liability of the respondents to the duty that the Revenue considers is due from them. On 26-3-1981, the respondents cleared a quantity of shirting cloth declaring it to be man-made fabrics (Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as in force at the material time) whereas, on test, it was found to consist of 51.3% of wool fibres and 48.7% of non-cellulosic fibres. The Assistant Collector, therefore, held that the fabric was woollen fabric falling under Item No. 21 of the Schedule in view of the predominance of wool fibre and demanded differential duty amounting to Rs. 4,083.73. In appeal, the Assistant Collector's order was set aside on the ground that, in accordance with the Central Board of Excise and Custom's letter F.No. 261/19/12/76-CX. 8, dated 25-2-77 allowing 2.5% tolerance in mixed...
Tag this Judgment!Crystal Paints Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(54)ELT249TriDel
1. The appellants have challenged the order-in-appeal passed by the learned Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 30-3-1989 so far as classification of the product 'Apcolite Universal Stainer' is concerned. There are two points before the Collector (Appeals) for consideration - (1) eligibility of the appellants for concession under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 and 2. As regards the first point, the learned Collector has held that the appellants are eligible for benefit of exemption as envisaged under Notification No. 175/86 and to that extent, he set aside the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector wherein he held that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of small scale industries exemption under the said notification.3. The Revenue has filed Appeal No. 4426/89-C against the order of the Collector in holding the appellants eligible for grant of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. As both these appeals have arisen together, both...
Tag this Judgment!Bagga Brothers Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991RLR245
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) In this petition for civil contempt of court, which had arisen as a result of breach of orders passed by this Court, whereby a direction was issued to the defendant, M.C.D., to grant municipal license, which direction was breached. A question had arisen whether the rules had been framed u/Ss. 416 and 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act for the purpose of grant or non-grant of licenses postulated by the said sections. (2) It was pointed out by counsel on 14.12.1990 that what exists with the defendant corporation is 'Your Guide to Factory Licenses', and it was stated that no rules have been framed u/Ss. 416 and 417 of the Act. The result of this was that it was not open to the Mcd to refuse to grant license under the aforesaid provisions to any person. (3) On 14.12.1990, I had directed the parties to lead their evidence in support of their respective contentions. The matter was directed to be listed for recording evidence as 'Short Cause' on 17.1.1991, and a...
Tag this Judgment!