Delhi Court October 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 4 of about 109 results (0.013 seconds)Hardik Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC563Tri(Delhi)
1. The order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay is challenged by the assessee in Appeal No. C. 481/94-A and by the Department in the remaining appeals.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of Mono Filament Yarn and claims that HDPE bags and LDPE film which can be used only as scrap are imported for the purpose of recycling. We are concerned in these appeals with the import made under 7 bills of entry in June and July 1993. The goods are in 7 containers. On the goods in 6 containers the assessee paid duty as per the declaration subject to appraisement. Regarding the 7th consignment, assessee demanded examination. Customs Officers conducted examination and held that a part only of the goods can be treated as scrap and rest should be treated as serviceable material. The total amount declared by the assessee was Rs. 7,04,719/-. A show cause notice was duly sent to the assessee, on the basis of the inspection result indicating that the actual value of the goods imported was Rs. 35,51,0...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bimetal Bearing Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)LC132Tri(Delhi)
1. The department is aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Appeals) by which the order passed by the Asstt. Collector was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Collector.2. The assessee manufactures bimetallic bearings and bushes in the manufacture of which bimetallic strips are used. In other words, bimetallic strips in this case is an intermediate product. The assessee filed a price list in part VI of the proforma which was provisionally approved for various periods from 1-3-1986 to 30-6-1986; 1-7-1986 to 30-6-1987; 1-7-1987 to 30-6-1988; and 1-7-1988 to 31-3-1989. Assistant Collector determined the value of the intermediate product under Rule 6(b)(l) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 taking into consideration the profit margin of the entire unit correlating the same to the intermediate product in the ratio of cost of production of the strips to the cost of production of final product. The appellate authority held that the profit margin in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Himalaya Textile Dyers Vs. Collector of Centre Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT269TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-original dated 29-12-1994 passed by the Collector of Central. Excise, New Delhi for de novo consideration in terms of the CEGAT's Final Order No. 475/89-D, dated 4-9-1989 which had been remanded to the Collector to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in mind the observations and directions contained in CEGAT's order.After the re-adjudication, the impugned order has been passed confirming the confiscation of the seized goods valued at Rs. 22,478.50 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the goods were not available for confiscation having been released to the party under B-ll Bond and under the Bank Guarantee amount of Rs. 10,000/-.Therefore, he has ordered for the appropriation of Rs. 5,000/- from the bank guarantee amount in lieu of confiscation. He has also confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 7,93,325.43 and Rs. 47,078.83 leviable on the processed cotton fabrics and processed man made fabrics said to have been cleared under Rule 9(2) of C...
Tag this Judgment!Tour Coordinator Association Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT709; 1995(35)DRJ418
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) Since these writ petitions involve the identical facts and raise similar issues we propose to dispose of these writ petitions by one common order. (2) The writ petitioners are engaged in the profession of Tourist Guides/Escorts and being engaged by various travel agencies of repute for the purpose of taking the foreign tourists to the various monuments and historical places and other places of interest including Delhi, Agra, Jaipur etc. for a number of years. Some of the petitioners herein have also successfully completed the course conducted by the Indian Association of Tour Operators and Travel Agents Association of India. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions No. 3120/ 1995 and 2970/1995 fall in the said category. The petitioners however, have not been provided with any license for the purpose of working as Tourist Guides/ Escorts as required under Rule 8(d) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1969. The grievance of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Shazma Vs. Azhar Ali Zai and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 66(1997)DLT267
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against the Order dated 15th November, 1994 of Shri V. K. Malhotra, Guardian Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge declined to grant interim custody of the minor child. Master Omar Azhar to the petitioner and dismissed the application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. '...The petitioner was married to respondent no. 1 on March 20, 1990. The said respondent was earlier married and divorced. The male child, Omar Azhar was born in the wedlock between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 on 7th April, 1992. The averments are made by the petitioner that the respondents and their family members started behaving indifferently towards her and the minor child and refused to maintain her. The other instances of misbehavior have been cited but it will not be necessary to refer to the same in the present case as they are not relevant at this stage. The petitioner further contends that on 28th July, 1994 respondent no. 1 pronounced 'Talak'...
Tag this Judgment!Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Chibber
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)732; 61(1995)DLT6; 1995(35)DRJ335; (1996)113PLR31
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall dispose of an application for the grant of ad interim injunction and an application filed by the defendant seeking certain directions to the Local Commissioner in a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the breach of copyright and confidentiality, and for rendition of account, etc. (2) The plaintiff is a mail order service company. According to the plaintiff it publishes mail order catalogues dealing with several consumer items which are posted to the select list of the plaintiff's clients. By this method the plaintiff does substantial business. A major investment notably in the business of mail order shopping is the compilation of a list of clientele/customers database which is of essential importance and consequence. The plaintiff has developed a list of clientele/customers database over a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit by investing considerable amount of money and time. The said database is an expensive and gradual...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarda Devi Singhania Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Del)174
ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J.M. :Appeal of the assessed relating to asst. yr. 1984-85 is directed against the order dt. 20th March, 1990 of CIT(A), New Delhi. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The first ground of appeal reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CWT(A)-IX New Delhi, erred both on facts and in law in holding that the credit balance of Rs. 31,402 being the balance standing to the credit of the assessed in her compulsory deposit account on the valuation date as it represents a right to receive annuity and hence, does not constitute an asset under s. 2(e) of the WT Act.'2. The issue as to whether the compulsory deposit is an asset assessable to wealth-tax is covered against the assessed by the following decisions :(i) Smt. Sunanda Devi Singhania vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 642 ;(ii) CWT vs. Vidur V. Patel : [1995]215ITR30(Bom) ; and(iii) CWT vs. Mst. Ashutosh Kumar Mahadevia : [1995]215ITR200(Bom) .This ground of appeal is accor...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Spinners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC565Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved with the rejection of the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune, as time-barred, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellants filed their refund claim before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad, which was rejected by him vide his Order-in-Original No.16/92, dated 13th April, 1992. Against that Order of the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed their appeal on 18-2-1993 along with an application for Condonation of Delay. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the application for Condonation of Delay holding as follows: "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants. I find that in this case there has been a delay over six months in filing appeal from the date of the order appealed against. In this regard provisions of Section 35 are very clear as they require that an appeal should be filed within three months from the date of conhmuni...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Coll. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT317TriDel
1. The above appeal arises against the order dated 17/26-4-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming rejection of refund claim of Rs. 59,798.40 p. by the Assistant Collector. The brief facts of the case are as follow : 2. The appellants' unit which originally belonged to M/s L.K. Sugar Pvt. Ltd. was acquired under Section 3 of the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 and vested in the appellant Corporation with effect from 4-5-1979. According to the Excise Department, a sum of Rs. 94,653.41 P. pertaining to the prior period was outstanding from the erstwhile owners on that date and this amount was recovered by (a) debiting the PLA of the erstwhile owners to the extent of their balance of Rs. 34,855/- and (b) by debiting the PLA of the appellants of the remaining amount of Rs. 59,798.40 P. on 1-3-1995. The appellants preferred a refund claim on 26-8-1995 for the amount mentioned at SI.No. (b) which was rejected as not admissible by order of the Assis...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Yamaha Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT396TriDel
1. The appeal is filed against the demand of about Rs. 53 lakhs and odd on account of duty and Rs. 3.63 lakhs and odd on account of maintenance expenses incurred by the dealers of the appellant. By order dated 7-6-1995 we indicated that regarding the demand of Rs. 53 lakhs and odd, the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case.Regarding the claim of Rs. 3 lakhs and odd, we concluded that the appellants have not been able to make out a prima facie case. Finally, we took the view that in case the appellants were directed to deposit the entire duty amount and penalty, it would create undue hardship. We directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3.63 lakhs within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order and report compliance to the Registry.When the matter came up on 31-8-1995, it was represented by the appellant that the amount has been debited in RG 23A Part II and he undertook to produce the certificate for having complied with the stay order. We directed the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!