Delhi Court October 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 1 of about 93 results (0.019 seconds)Agro Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT442TriDel
1. This stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 49,362.80 and stay of recovery proceedings arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. 114/CE/JPR/94, dated 29-7-1994 passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants Shri G. Shiv Dass submits that there was for a short time dispute about classification in so far as it related to sub-heading 3901.10 whereas for other period they have classified under 3901.90. However, there is no dispute in regard to admissibility to Modvat in regard to raw materials, in regard to description of inputs nor dispute in regard to validity of the documents or use of inputs in the manufacture. The only ground on which modvat is sought to be denied is that correct classification under sub-heading is not indicated. The learned Advocate further submits that this case is well settled and cited the following decisions in support of his case.Eagle Spring Industries v. CCE - reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 103 (T), 2. Biha...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Textile Mills Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ344
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In a petition filed under Sections 14, 17 & 29 of the Arbitration Act, 194U, by the petitioner, notice was served on Respondent No.2, the sole arbitrator. The Arbitrator tiled the award dated May 20, 1985, in this Court by which she disallowed the claim of Rs.8,75,330.00 of the Union of India. Notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties. Union of India had filed objections to the said award which are contested by the petitioner. Following issues were framed: 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection petition? 2.Relief. (2) Issue No.1The petitioner had put up the claim before the arbitrator in the following manner that the contract was made between the parties in 1967 by virtue of which the petitioner was to supply 1000 pieces of Tent Private MK.3 Flies Inner @ Rs.423.00 each and 20,000 pieces of lent Private MK.3 Walls without poles @ Rs.l08.00 each and the delivery was to be completed by December 31, 1967...
Tag this Judgment!Whirlpool Co. and anr. Vs. N.R. Dongre and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)667; 56(1994)DLT304; 1995(32)DRJ318
ORDERreputation of the plaintiff, has been, in my view, established sufficiently in this country by means of the fact that the sales of Glenfiddich takes place on duty free shops in India, by the fact that advertisement of Glenfiddich whisky are to be found in various magazines, like the In house magazine of Air India, and other foreign publications which are freely available in India, ( some of which have been placed on record of this case), as a result of which, in my view, Glenfiddich whisky has a live reputation in India..(18) There is yet another very recent decision of this Court in Wwf International vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd Suit No. 822/94 decided on 7.10.94 by P.K. Bahri, J ; 1995 (31) Drj 412 referring to the law laid down in Sears Roebuck & Co. vs. Happy House (TV) Mfg Co Ltd & Ors .1992 Ptc 59.18.1Therein the plaintiff running retail stores chain in America under the trade mark Sears had no physical presence in India nor had registration of trade mark Sears in India ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT952TriDel
1. Shri H.P. Arora, learned Counsel, for the applicants states that in this case penally has been imposed on them under Rule 173Q which he contends is not applicable in the facts of the case. If at all, any penalty is attracted, it may be under Rule 223 which has a ceiling of Rs. 1,000/-. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 403 (Mad.). In the said decision it has been held that for stock taking shortages, duty liability under Rule 223A is attracted. The question whether penalty would be attracted under Rule 173Q or under Stile 223A will come up for detailed examination when the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.At this interlocutary stage, we see that the matter is arguable and the application of Rule 173Q which had been invoked in the impugned orders may not be said to be irrelevant. In the circumstances, we feel that waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of pe...
Tag this Judgment!Metro Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC730Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs, Chandigarh dated 2-1-1992.2. Learned Counsel stated that this case relates to importation of synthetic rubber of the type of Butyl rubber under the advance licence (DEEC scheme) claiming benefit of exemption Notification No. 159/90.3. At this stage there was no dispute regarding the description, quantity or value of the goods because the material had been correctly declared as... synthetic rubber and the small (negligible) difference in quantity has already been condoned by the Collector and there is no dispute regarding value.4. The Collector has, however, still invoked section 111 (m) against them on the ground that they had wrongly claimed the benefit of this exemption notification knowingly as the Butyl rubber had not been used in the manufacture of cycle tubes and tyres which had been exported and with reference to which this importation was being made.5. First and foremost it was their contention that no misdeclarat...
Tag this Judgment!Nandi Metal Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT199TriDel
1. We have heard the learned Advocate Shri M.G.S. Murthy as also the learned SDR Shri K.K. Jha.2. In the first instance, Shri M.G.S. Murthy has pointed out a few factual errors which are in the nature of typing errors to which we agree and we straightaway proceed to correct them as have been also conceded by the learned SDR :- (1) In para 16 at page 13 of the Tribunal's Order dated 22nd February, 1994 for the words "brass sheets and circles manufacture out of waste and scrap is concerned", the words "brass scrap" should be read. (2) Wherever Notification No. 172/84 occurs in the order of the Tribunal it should be read as Notification No. 173/84. (3) At page 7 of the order S. No. (iii) shall be introduced after S. No. (ii) as follows : "(iii) as to whether brass scrap is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 173/84 and succeeding Notification No. 79/86." (4) S. No. (iii) at page 7 of the Order shall be read as S. No. (iv). (5) The word "exempted" in 5th line at page 18 of the Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Communications Network Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT948TriDel
1. M/s. Indian Communication Network have filed this appeal against the order of Additional Collector. The Addl. Collector in his order had held : "I order that goods described as 'ribbons' in the Bill of Entry, while in invoice as 'Pancakes' valued at Rs. 4,18,910/- be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. However, I permit the importer to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). I impose a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 211000 dated 27-2-1990 seeking clearance of the goods described as ribbons for electronic typewriter under OGL Appendix 6(1).On examination, the goods were found to be ribbons for typewriters. The department was of the view that typewriter ribbons are restricted items for import as they were covered by S. No. 118 of Appendix 2(b) of the Import and Export Policy 1988-91. It was a...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Excise Vs. Doon Valley Combers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT885TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise has filed this appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held :- "I have considered the matter, and I find that the appellants have a case on merits. Though the Asstt. Collector has attempted to describe at some length the process of manufacture of wool tops and 'Noils', has not pointed out specifically as to why he considered the impugned product as not 'noils' but only as 'so called a noils', the expression which he has not at all shown as to whether or not the product confirms to the description of 'noils' and he has not produced any evidence in support of his coming to this negative conclusion. The appellants on the other hand clearly pointed out that their product confirmes to the specification of 'noils' as indicated in the ISI's Glossary of Textile term, IS: 232:1967 wherein the product has been described as shorter fibres separated from a longer fibres during the process of combing. It is clear that...
Tag this Judgment!Magadh Steel Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT98TriDel
1. Since we proceed to dispose of the appeal itself today on question of law, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty pending disposal.2. Shri P.R. Dastidar, Ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna dated 1-3-1994 is not sustainable in law on the grounds of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. It was submitted that initially the hearing was fixed for 20-1-1994 and subsequently at the request of the appellants the Collector was pleased to adjourn the hearing to 4-2-1994 but unfortunately, in respect of the hearing on 4-2-1994 the Department did not send notice of hearing to the Consultant at Delhi as was the case on the earlier occasion but only sent notice to the party at Patna and the party could communicate the date of hearing only on 3-2-1994 to the consultant at Delhi. In the meanwhile, Shri Gupta, Sr. partner of the local firm took seriously ill and unfortunately passed away also eventu...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Sattar and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT142TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming a duty demand on 3,20,000 branded biris and 2,23,31,450 unbranded biris found short at the time of visit of the Central Excise officers in the factory premises of the appellants on 31-7-1982 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. Delay in filing the cross objection is condoned.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31-7-1982, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur alongwith Preventive officers, paid a surprise visit to M/s. Mohd. Sattar & Co., the appellants herein had examined the records and physically checked and verified stock of Branded and unbranded Biris. On verification of the stock, it was found that there were 80,000 Branded biris in two jhals and 3,18,000 unbranded loose Biris in stock, whereas the book balance was 12,00,000 (Opening balance) Branded Biris and 2,24,77,100 (Opening balance) unbranded Biris as per RG-12A register. Out of 12,00,0...
Tag this Judgment!