Delhi Court September 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 2 of about 93 results (0.021 seconds)Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and anr., Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT507(Del); ILR1992Delhi433
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) In this batch of seven writ petitions, the petitioners challange the show cause notices issued to them by the Collector of Central Excise, the second respondent requiring them to show cause as to why their respective plant, machinery, land and building utilised in the manufacture, etc. of the fabrics as mentioned in the show cause notices should not be confiscated to the Government under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the Central Excise Rules'), and further that penalties should not imposed on them under Rules 9(2) and 172Q of the Rules. There is also a challenge to the show cause notices a; to why a penalty should not be imposed under rule 209A of the Rules. The petitioners seek setting aside of the show cause notices. It may at once be noticed here itself that contravention of the Rules is regarding levy and collection and additional duties of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (for short 'the...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Anand Vs. Rehmatullah and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT637
Mital, C.J. (1) Plots bearing Khasra Sakni Nos 13 and 14 In village Kalu Sarai, New Delhi was sold by the Rehabilitation Department in favor of Dr. K.L. Anand vide sale certificates Exhibits Public Witness . 1/1 and Public Witness . 1/2, wherein the boundaries were not correctly mentioned and corrected sale certificates were issued on 25th October, 1969, copies of which are Annexures Exhibits P.W. 1/3 and Public Witness . 1/4. The sale certificates were issued pursuant to an open auction held by the Rehabilitation Department on 14th April, 1967, in which Dr. K.L. Anand was found to be the highest bidder. (2) Rehmatullah and his brother filed Civil Writ Petition No. 960 of 1969 in this Court on 9th September, 1969 challenging the sale certificates issued to Dr. K L. Anand and the writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court on 15th September, 1978 and their Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 1978 was dismissed on 14th September, 1982. The judgment of the Letters Patent Bench...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vipul Shipyard
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT616TriDel
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the vessels/ships manufactured by the respondents herein are covered by the expression "Ocean Going Vessels" falling under Tariff Item 68 which are exempted under Notification No. 102/80, dated 19-6-1980 amending the Notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-1975. Subsequently another Notification No. 104/82, dated 28-2-1982 was issued superseding the earlier Notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-1975. S. No. 33 in the schedules to the said Notification No. 104/82 again exempted "Ocean Going Vessels" from excise duty. The lower appellate authority has held that the "Barges" manufactured by the respondents herein are covered by the aforesaid expression "Ocean Going Vessels" exempted under the said notifications.2. It is fairly conceded by the learned JDR for the appellant-collector that the judgment of the Tribunal Nos. 541 to 544/84B [1985 (19) E.L.T.122 (Tri.)]in the case of the respondents themselves, namely, Vipul Shipyard, Bombay v. C.C.E., B...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC125
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal No. 197/89(M) dated 10-8-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether Servo Brake Valve and its parts and Shut Off Cock and its parts would be classifiable under Heading 87.08 as parts and accessories of Motor Vehicles as urged by the Department or under Heading 8481.80 as claimed by the respondents.3. The Assistant Collector has held that the products are classifiable under Heading 8708.00 observing that L.T. Servo mainly consists of a valve assembly and an actuator assembly. While the valve assembly is used for controlling the output of the Servo, the actuator portion is used for converting the air-pressure energy to mechanical energy; further, for the purpose of classification under Heading 8481.80, the valve should be an appliance for pipes,' boiler shell tank, vats or the like including pressure reducing valves. Therefore classification...
Tag this Judgment!Radio Publicity Services Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(38)LC338Tri(Delhi)
1. The present Rectification of Mistake application emerges from the Tribunal's Order No. 366/90-B2 dated 31.7.1990. Shri N. Singh, the learned consultant, has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He reiterated the contentions made in the application for Rectification of Mistake. Shri Singh pleaded that while coming to the conclusion the Tribunal did not appreciate the correct position as to whether duplicating from one master cassette to other cassettes is to be treated as industrial plant. Shri Singh pleaded that if the Tribunal had taken into consideration the correct position the decision of the Tribunal would have been different and necessary evidence for establishing as an industry is very much part of the records. Shri Singh pleaded for the acceptance of the Rectification of Mistake application and pleaded that the Tribunal should come to a correct conclusion.2. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent pleaded that there is no infirmity in...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shashi Kapur
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD47(Delhi)
1. The revenue has come up in appeal with the following common grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CWT(A) has erred in directing that the value of eggs under the hatching process may be taken at nil for computing the share of the assessee in Kegg Farms. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CWT(A) has erred in directing that the exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act may be allowed to the assessee by ignoring the material fact that the building is owned by the firm M/s. Kegg Farms. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CWT(A) erred in law and fact in directing the WTO to allow income-tax liabilities which arose after the valuation date and were not claimed before the WTO without giving opportunity to the WTO.2. When these appeals came up for hearing earlier before a Division Bench, it was felt that the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessees' case in respect of the issue involved in ground No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarupi Devi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992ACJ671; 45(1991)DLT551
Usha Mchra, J.(1) Smt. Sarupi Devi ann others have filed this suit againstUnion of India and the General Manager, Northern Railways. Smt. SarupiDevi is the mother of one Vinod Kumar and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are hisbrothers. The said Vinod Kumar was alleged to be a cultivator and alsoengaged in dairy farming. On 23/05/1983 at about I a.m. when the saidVinod Kumar was ioing in a truck accompanied by other persons, be met witha fetal accident as a result of which he died at the spot. the case as built upby the plaintiffs is that Vinod Kumar was traveling in the truck which was crossing the railway level crossing of Khera Kalan, Delhi between Badli andHalambi Kalan stations. the gate of the level crossing of Khera Kalan at thetime of the accident was left open by the gateman. the truck in which the deceased Vinod Kumar was traveling when it was crossing the railway level from one erection and from the opposite direction a tractor was coming inolder to cross the railway level crossing. th...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT431TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi, ordering confiscation of 7 video cassette sets along with 7 remote controls and 3 empty cartons of video cassette recorders Model NV 300, collectively valued at Rs. 4,200/- under Sec. 111(d) and Sec. 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the appellant under Section 112 ibid. The ground taken by the appellant in the appeal is that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the statement of Shri Rajesh Suneja, brother-in-law of the appellant in coming to the conclusion that 20 video cassettes recorders, 27 video cassettes and 545 un-recorded video cassettes valued at Rs. 3.84 lakhs seized from premises No. B-38, Nizamuddin West, a flat taken in rent by Sh. Sohan Lal, were meant for disposal at his shop only. The shop is known as M/s. Jordan Electronics and is located at Shop No. 257 Palika Bazar, New Delhi. It is claimed that th...
Tag this Judgment!Meghdoot Laminates (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)(45)LC361Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of decorated laminated sheets falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15A(2).They were selling their product directly to independent buyers. They were also sending the goods on their own account to their consignment agents at different centres. After selling the goods the consignment agents remitted the sale proceeds to the appellants along with the details of expenditure incurred and the commission earned by them. In the show cause notice dated 22.5.1986 it was alleged that in respect of the sales through the consignment agents the appellants had wilfully suppressed facts and misdeclared the value of the goods with the intent to evade duty by not including in the assessable value, certain essential components such as commission, loading and unloading charges handling and other miscellaneous expenses. Thereafter in the impugned order, the Collector observed that the appellants had been selling their goods at the factory and throug...
Tag this Judgment!Kissan Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT471TriDel
1. In both these appeals, the issue involved is as to whether the appellants were entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82.2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that in Appeal No. 1847/85-D the appellants are manufacturer of P.P. foods falling under T.I. 1-B of CET. They are packing their products in glass jars/bottles and are using 58 mm closures to pack the P.P. foods. They were availing credit under Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 in respect of 58 mm closure caps used as cover on Jams, Jellies and Marmalades packed bottles. The said Notification grants set-off of duty paid on T.I. 68 goods when used in the manufacture of any item. With the amendment of the said Notification by No. 105/82, dated 28-2-1982, the set-off was available to those T.I. 68 goods which have been used as "raw material" or component parts in the manufacture of excisable goods. The authorities below have denied the benefit of the Notification observin...
Tag this Judgment!