Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.K. Mittal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT199TriDel
1. The above applications have been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs levied on each of the petitioner under Section 120-A of the Customs Act, 1962 under the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay dt. 26-7-1994.2. Sh. L.P. Asthana, the Id. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that penalty has been levied on grounds of contravention of ITC Regulations and also on charges of under-valuation of the goods imported by the petitioners. It was admitted -that the petitioner is a Proprietorship concern and therefore under law there cannot be separate penalty, one on Proprietorship concern and other on the Proprietor and this position is Well settled by the ruling of Special Bench A of the Tribunal in the case of Universal Commercial Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Delhi, 3. In regard to the levy of penalty eiter on the Proprietor or Proprietorship concern, the Id. Counsel further submitted that in respect of goods imported the licensing author...
Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT402TriDel
1. This is an application for dispensation of the small amount of Rs. 74,597.85 purporting to be under Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. When the application was taken up for hearing, Shri Deepak Mohindru, Sr. Sales Officer of the appellants' company, appeared and orally requested that the hearing be adjourned as one Shri Sudhir, who is to appear in the instant case is not available. When told by the Bench that this week has been earmarked for the clearance of the pending stay Applications and the concerns were put on notice through the media, he has nothing to comment. However, the Bench proceeded to decide the application on merits and heard Shri Deepak Mohindru, Senior Sales Officer. He while arguing reiterated the grounds taken up in the Stay Application and submitted that the appellants' factory is under lock-out. However, he admitted that no evidence indicating the said lock-out or strike has been placed on the record. He also admitted that the balance-sh...
M.P. Vegetable Fruits Products Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT393TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 3-12-1992 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Raipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tomato Puree which is packed in jerry cans of 35 litre capacity for being supplied to manufacturers of Tomato Ketchup. The appellants filed a declaration in terms of Notification No. 11/88-C.E.(N.T.), dated 18-4-1988 with the intention of availing the benefit in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. In the said declaration they described their product as 'Tomato Puree' classifiable under sub-heading 2104.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of the enquiries made from the appellants in January 1989 when statements of some of their officers were recorded, they were served with a show cause notice dated 27-1-1992 alleging that they had .misdeclared their product as classifiable under sub-heading 2104.90. On the grounds that the goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10...
Ambika Forgings Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT352TriDel
1. M/s. Ambika Forgings have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector in his order had held :- "In reply to the cross objection, the respondents have stated that the grounds set out in the memo of appeal regarding the waste and scrap of steel arising during the manufacture of hand tools is not exempt under Notification No. 171/88, dated 13-5-1988 as the same arises out of the exempted goods and the condition under Col. 5 against Sr. No. 3 of Notn. is not satisfied, is not correct which merits to be rejected. The respondents have further stated that the exemption to waste and scrap emerging during the course of manufacture of hand tools is available under Notification No. 171/88, dated 13-5-1988 as amended because the waste and scrap has arisen out of duty paid material. Respondents relied on the judgments quoted as 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 399), 1988 (35) E.L.T. 142, 1987 (32) E.L.T. 521 to interpret the term 'paid' Nil rate of duty. They h...
Dalip Kumar Alias Pinki Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1742
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. Dalip Kumar alias Pinki and Mahesh Kumar alias Lapper original accused in Section's case No. 9/87 have preferred the present appeals against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20th February, 1990 by which he held them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer regorous imprisonment for, six months. As these two appeals are arising out of one and the same trial and are preferred against one and the same judgment they are heard together and they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Deceased Shiv Kumar alias Nodhi was younger brother of first informant, Satinder Kumar Kohli r/o 11/81, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Deceased Shiv Kumar alias Nodhi as well as his brother, first informant, Satinder Kumar Kohil are rickshaw drivers. The present two appeallants Dalip Kumar alias Pinki and Mahesh ...
D.D. Axles Pvt. Ltd Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi248; 57(1995)DLT469; 1995(32)DRJ385
D.K. Jain, J.(1) ADMIT.(2) Since a very short question of law is involved, we propose to dispose of this appeal at this stage itself.(3) This appeal is by a large industrial power consumer against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in various I.As. in Suit No. 1403-A/93, vacating the interim stay orders to the extent to which these restrained the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (D.E.S.U. for short) from recovering from the appellant the demand charges and/or minimum consumption guarantee (in short the M.C.G.) charges and also holding that the dispute raised by the appellant in its petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the respondent D.E.S.U.'s right to recover demand charges and/or M.C.G. charges, as the case may be, is not available for reference to Arbitrator.(4) As will be noticed hereafter the controversy raised is with respect to the calculation of the tariff amount/consumption charges payable by the appellant per month and the dispute pert...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Vishal Paper Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC291Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh against the order dated 31-8-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise .(Appeals) New Delhi. The respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff filed a Classification List No. 28/87-88, dated 1-4-1987 claiming therein the benefit of the exemption admissible to S.S.I. units in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 (as amended). After the approval of the classification list, the respondents filed another Classification List No. 62/87-88, dated 15-9-1987 claiming therein the benefit in terms of Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 (as amended) and Notification No. 45/83, dated 1-3-1983 (as amended) in respect of Mill Board manufactured by them. The respondents were issued a show cause notice dated 17-12-1987 stating that in terms of para 2 of Notification No. 45/83, dated 1-3-1983, the benefit of the Notification was ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rajasthan Explosives and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT110TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur had filed an application under Rule 35G of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for referring the following questions of law to the Honourable High Court for obtaining their authoritative ruling thereon, the said questions having arisen from the Tribunal's Order No. A/278/94-NRB, dated 4-3-1994 on the appeal filed by M/s. Rajasthan Explosives & Chemicals Ltd. who are respondents herein : "Whether in the matter of adjustment of Modvat credit, Rule 57E is to be interpreted independently of the provisions of Rule 57A or Rule 57A shall have an over-riding effect on the provisions of Rule 57E. Whether the credit of differential duty in respect of inputs on account of escalation of value could be allowed in terms of Rule 57E as it existed prior to amendment by Notification No. 117/87-C.E., dated 15-4-1987".In the said order of this Bench it was held that the respondents herein were entitled to adjustment in credit account of differential duty paid up...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT413TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed by Collector of Central Excise, Bombay being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As the issue involved in both these appeals is the same and the appeals arise out of the same order-in-appeal, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that :- "I have carefully gone through appeal petition and written submissions. In my opinion pillow covers and napkins are correctly classifiable under Item No. 19 of Central Excise Tariff. In this connection, I rely upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in writ petition No. 346 of 1969 decided on 12th August 1970 in case of Dayal Weaving Factory, Panipat v. Union of India and Ors.. It was observed by the Hon'ble Court as under: "One fails to see how bed sheets are exempted while bed covers are not (Pillow covers of smaller size). If the product is tapestry or furnishing fabric including required curtain cloth. Be i...
Metrosyl Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT130TriDel
1. This appeal arises against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. By his order-in-original dated 12-10-1987, the Id. Collector has upheld the allegation that they were not entitled the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979 in respect of T.I. 68 goods manufactured and cleared from M/s. Metrosyl (the appellant herein) during the financial year 1979-80,1980-81 and 1981-82 (upto Jan'82). A show cause notice dated 20-9-1982 had alleged that the appellants were conducting their business independently but were so closely related and associated with the company namely M/s.Metroark Pvt. Ltd., 345, Parnashee Pally, Calcutta that they appeared to be one entity. In this regard the show-cause notice has also alleged that during this period the excisable goods valued at Rs. 1,30,63,279.42 were cleared without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 10,45,062.35 in violation of provisions of Rules 9, 173B, 173C, 173F, 173G(4) of the Central Excise Ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »