Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 3 of about 144 results (0.019 seconds)Jawahar Metal Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT208TriDel
1. When the case called, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Clerk of Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, learned Advocate moved an application for an adjournment signed by the Advocate herself stating that "she is suffering from slip disc and has been advised complete bedrest by the Doctor". In support photocopy of the certificate is attached. Certifying as follows : "Mrs.Archana Wadhwa who is under my treatment for prolapsed I.V. Disc is advised further rest for two weeks with effect from 9-12-1994." This certificate is undated.2. Shri Somesh Arora, learned JDR opposes the prayer and submitted that very Advocate Mrs. Archana Wadhwa appeared before this Bench on 14-12-1994 and argued Stay Application No. E/513/94-B1 in Appeal No.E/876/94-B1 in the case of Aarti Steels Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. She also appeared in another matter M/s. Bhushan Metallic Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh in E/Stay /638/94-B in Appeal No. E/831/94-B. He requested for the dismissal of the stay applica...
Tag this Judgment!Premnath Diesel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT640TriDel
1. The appellant is a Limited Company and is engaged inter alia in the activity of acting as a Distributor in India for General Motors Overseas Corporation, Singapore, Detroit Diesel Overseas Distribution Corporation, U.S.A. and Twin Disc Incorporated Corporation, U.S.A.Apart from acting as a distributor of the products of the above named Principals the appellant also imports from the aforesaid principals assembly of diesel engines and spare parts for diesel engines and transmission assemblies, which are used in earth moving, mining and irrigation machinery. In case of imports of the above-mentioned goods, by other parties, the appellant acts as an indenting agent of the aforesaid Principals and receives commission of 6% of the invoiced amounts in respect of sales to other parties. In case of imports by the appellants themselves the invoiced price is reduced by the suppliers to the extent of the commission payable as per agreement of distributorship with the appellants. Before the int...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indi-carb Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT906TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 37/86 (CBE), dated 31-3-1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras whereby the latter had allowed this appeal of M/s. Indi-Carb Ltd. who are respondents in the present appeal accepting their plea that tool holders manufactured by them were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 51A as decided by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hosur. In the appeal, it has been contended by the appellant collector that the Collector (Appeals) had mainly relied upon the assessment practice said to be prevailing in Hyderabad Collectorate. It has been ascertained from that Collectorate that there are no units there manufacturing the goods in question. On this ground itself the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) would be improper and incorrect. On merits, it has been contended that the product tool holder had been correctly classified ...
Tag this Judgment!Atam Con Cast Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT448TriDel
1. M/s. Atam Con Cast Steel Pvt. Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order of Addl. Collector. The Addl. Collector in his order had held:- "I have seen the case paper, carefully and the party's submissions and also submission made at the time of personal hearing. The short point before me for determination is whether in respect of ship breaking material the modvat credit is restricted to Rs. 500 per M.T. or more. In terms of Notification No. 177/86-CX, dated 1-3-1986 as amended, the Modvat Credit on goods obtained from breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures is restricted to Rs. 500 per M.T. or the actual duty paid whichever is less. Heading No. 72.30 and 73.27 of the Central Excise 1985 (5 of 1986) covers the goods and material obtained by the breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures. I find the party was entitled to take credit of Rs. 500 per M.T. or actual duty paid whichever is less. But in the instant case the party has taken credit for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Insulation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT220TriDel
1. When the Stay application was called, the learned Advocate for the appellant was not present. For reasons, which will become apparent, we have, after hearing the learned SDR, decided to grant the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and with the consent of the SDR, dispose of the appeal.2. The appellant had taken Modvat credit on additional duty of customs paid on a consignment of electrolytic copper wires bars imported at Bombay. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, after adjudication proceedings held that the appellant was not entitled to credit because the import was by M/s. Bombay Metal Industries and not by the appellant, and the appellant did not buy the consignment on high sea sales basis. This order was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).4. It is seen that entire consignment was sold by the importer to the appellant. The importer has also certified on the bill of entry that he has not taken any credit of duty in respect the goods covered by the bill of en...
Tag this Judgment!Mamu Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)474; 1995CriLJ979; 1994(31)DRJ272
1. The accused appellant Mamu Lal has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 307 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge has preferred appeal to this Court. 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under : 3. That at 8.20 p.m. on 31st January, 1976 according to the prosecution at Regarpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, Harichand and Chiranjilal caught hold of one Niranjan while the appellant inflicted injuries. Niranjan was admitted to the hospital on 31st January, 1976 and was discharged on 18th February, 1976. He was further readmitted to the hospital on 14th March, 1976 in an unconscious condition and he died on 4th April, 1976. 4. According to the doctor, the cause of death was meningIT is which may have been developed because of the infected wounds on the back of the deceased. The deceased was alcoholic and used to wear v...
Tag this Judgment!Somaiya Organic (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC55Tri(Delhi)
1. The above application has been filed in terms of Section 35G of CESA 1944 for reference of the following questions of law purported to have arisen out of the final order of the Tribunal bearing No. A/236/94/NRB, dated 24-2-1994. 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal is correct in law? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal denying money credit on Ethyl Alcohol used in the manufacture of specified final products is correct in law especially when Solvent 75 and Paraldehyde are arising in the course of manufacture of specified final product? 3. In any event of the matter, whether denial of money credit on Ethyl Alcohol in the present case is correct in law especially when Solvent 75 and Paraldehyde are emerging in the process after such Ethyl Alcohol is used in the manufacture of specified final product? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Solvent 75 can be treated as finished ex...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Prakash Kapoor
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC363Tri(Delhi)
1. This application for condonation of delay has been filed with reference to order-in-appeal No. 8/Cus./CHD/94, dated 23-5-1994.2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that Revision Application was originally filed before the Central Government under Section 35 EE of Central Excises and Salt Act on the plea that since matter pertain to draw back, Central Government was the proper forum for entertaining the Revision. This Revision petition was filed in time. Subsequently however on receipt of advice from Senior Technical Officer in the office of CBEC, they have filed it before Tribunal. He prays that since it was a case only for seeking relief before a wrong forum under a genuine belief the period spent in pursuing remedy should be allowed to be excluded and delay of 19 days be condoned. In support of his contention that in such cases where appeals were filed in wrong forum, condonation is allowed, he cited the cases of: Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Major Daljit Singh - 1987 (32) E.L.T...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Devices (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT321TriDel
1. M/s. Continental Devices Pvt. Ltd. have filed these appeals against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held :- "4. I find that Rule 173L which in fact provides an exception to the general ban on return of duty paid goods to the factory as stipulated in Rule 51A, clearly requires that the goods should be returned for the purposes of being re-made, reconditioning etc. which are specified in the said Rule. The purpose of return has to be one of the specified purposes and nothing beyond. If the purpose for return is different from for being re-made, re-conditioned etc., the provisions of Rule 173L will not be applicable. I do not agree with the appellants that there could be any distinction made between the initial purpose of return and final purpose of return as sought to be made by them. When the duty paid goods goes out of the factory, it is normally expected that these are not to be returned. If these are to be returned, the purpose can be on...
Tag this Judgment!Surekha Coated Tubes and Sheets Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT784TriDel
1. M/s. Surekha Coated Tubes and Sheets Ltd. have filed a Reference application being aggrieved from an order passed by the Tribunal. The said application was presented in the Registry on the 28th September, 1994. In Column No. 6 of the Reference application, the date of communication has been mentioned as 17-1-1994. Thus, in terms of provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of Customs Act, 1962, a Reference application has to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Thus, there is a delay of 194 days. Applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit. Shri G.L. Rawal, Advocate with Shri A. Samad, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Rawal pleaded that first the application for condonation of delay in filing the Reference application may be taken up. Shri K.K. Jha, ld. SDR has got no objection. Accordingly, we proceeded to hear the application for condonation of delay. Shri Rawal pleaded that t...
Tag this Judgment!