Delhi Court October 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 5 of about 109 results (0.020 seconds)Electrical Devices Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT278TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector (Appeals) upholding the decision of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that the appellants are not eligible for Modvat credit of Rs. 53,469.29 P. availed during the period April, 1990 to July, 1990 on inputs used by them in the manufacture of their final product Electric motors which had not been declared in the declaration filed under Rule 57G(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri R.K. Jain, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants, submits that the non-mention of Electric motor as a final product in the declaration was due to inadvertence but would however, urge that the intention expressed in the classification list filed with effect from 1-4-1990 to avail Modvat credit on this item and the letter dated 11th January, 1989 addressed to the Assistant Collector, enclosing the photo copies of Gate Passes received for the purpose of availing Modvat facility in the manufacture of final products, establish s...
Tag this Judgment!Prestcon Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT305TriDel
1. Heard Shri K.A. Sindhi, learned Consultant. Shri K.A. Sindhi admitted that the present stay applica- tion has not been filed in respect of the order-in-appeal No. 39/94 (43-Raj.) CE Collr. (A) AHD dated 24-2-1994 though it has been mentioned so in column No. 2 of EA-3 form - memorandum of appeal. Clarifying, he submitted that so far as demand under that order of the Collector (Appeals) is concerned, the appel- lants have already paid Rs. 943/- but his grievance was that in the other appeal filed by the assessee before the Collector (Appeals) (F. No.V2 (68)16/RAJ/94) against the order-in-original No. 37/93, dated 25-11-1993 of the Assistant Col- lector, an application for stay under Section 35F was moved which was rejected by him vide stay order No.9/95, dated 10-7-1995. He admitted that no appeal has been filed against the said stay order.2. Shri G.D. Sharma, learned JDR stated that the appeal is not main- tainable against any interim stay order passed by the Collector (Appeals) be...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT388TriDel
1. The appellant in the earlier appeal who is the respondent in the later appeal is the Department. The respondent in the earlier appeal who is the appellant in the later appeal is M/s. Excorts Ltd. whom we refer as assessee in this order.2. The assessee is manufacturing 100 c.c. Motor cycles under technical assistance agreement with and licence from M/s. Yamaha Motor Company Ltd., a concern in Japan. The agreement entered into on 1-8-1983 was amended on 6-2-1984. The period originally fixed, has expired, the agreement has been kept alive by subsequent agreements. We are told that even now the agreement is in force. The Assistant Collector was not prepared to accept the invoice price and determined the assessable value by adding one per cent to the invoice price. This order for the period between 1983-88 was set aside in the appeal. The appellate order is challenged in the earlier appeal. In 1988 the Customs Valuation Rules were amended. For the period subsequent to the amendment of R...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT792TriDel
1. The respondent is a manufacturer of various products including paper. Respondents filed price list on 15-2-1982 effective from that date claiming deduction regarding post-manufacturing expenses. Show cause notice dated 12-4-1982 was issued to show cause why the deduction claimed should not be disallowed and this was confirmed by order dated 15-6-1982. It appears that an interim order regarding stay was passed.It is not known whether the Writ Petition filed by the assessee is pending now or not. On 11-10-1982 the assessee filed a revised price list showing reduced price for paper and claiming the same deduction as earlier. The Assistant Collector approved the revised price list (though without approving the deduction claim) with effect from the date of his order, namely; 31-3-1983. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Collector (Appeals) held that approval of the revised price list would be effective from the date on which the revised price list was filed viz. 11-10-1982. Depart...
Tag this Judgment!Engee Industrial Services (Pvt.) Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT100TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order dated 14th July, 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, Bombay extending the period for issue of show cause notice by a period of six months from 15-7-1995, in terms of the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the application for stay of operation of the order is not pressed by the learned Counsel, we dismiss the same as withdrawn and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant herein is a private company carrying on, inter alia, the business of ship breaking and for that purpose, it had imported a ship called 'Ocean Blessing'. Nikhil Alloy Steels Ltd. is also a private company carrying on inter alia, the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products from its factory at Raigad (Maharashtra). Sh. Vinod Goel and Smt. Sujata Goel are the directors of both these companies.3. On 16-1-1995, the officers o...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT33TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, are aggrieved by the order dated 7-2-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The facts, briefly, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soft drink concentrates. They sell concentrates to various bottlers who produce beverage products out of the concentrates bearing the brand name of the appellants. The appellants have entered into agreement with the bottlers by which they have, inter alia, allowed the bottlers to use their brand name on the beverage products, manufactured by the bottlers out of the concentrate manufactured and supplied to them by the appellants. This royalty is payable @ 2.75 per cent of the maximum retail price of the beverage and is payable for each bottle of the beverage despatched by the bottlers from their plant. The period in dispute in this case is from 1-9-1992 to 31-3-1993. The appellants filed price lists of their product during the relevant period. In answer to a quest...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT122TriDel
1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,46,440.20/- confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs imposed by him, the learned counsel Ms. Archana Wadhwa submits that the entire basis of the demand is the consumption of thousand units of electricity for production of 1 M.T. of M.S. Ingots.She draws our attention to page 22 of the impugned order wherein the Collector while dropping the charge as set out in the show cause notice of consumption of 650 units of electricity in a furnace for production of 1M.T. of M.S. Ingots goes on to held that thousand units of electricity will be the amount of power required to produce 1 M.T. She submits that this is based upon the statement of Shri Harpal Singh, workman of another company and it is not based upon any concrete evidence that that is the amount of electricity required for production of 1 M.T. of M.S. Ingots. The case of the applicant is that 1100 electricity units is normally consum...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Ajay Kumar Sood
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Del)145; [1996]217ITR686(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) seeking for a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law in respect of the asst. yr. 1982-83 : 'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law on the facts of the case in directing the WTO to adopt the market value of the share of M/s R. C. Sood & Co. (P) Ltd., M/s Kumar Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Nehru Place Hotel Ltd., on the yield method instead of the break up value under r. 1D of the WT Rules?'2.The WTO, by his assessment order in respect of the present assessed for the relevant asst. yr. 1982-83 valued the shares as per r. 1D of the WT Rules (hereinafter called the Rules). On appeal having been filed the AAC directed to adopt the market value of shares on yield basis. The Tribunal, however, on the appeal filed before it, followed the decision of this Court in the writ petition of Sharbati Devi Jhalani vs . CWT : [1986]159ITR549(Delhi) and...
Tag this Judgment!Entral Warehousing Corporation Vs. Uppal Engine Const. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi74
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) Having regard to the affidavits filed and the facts stated in the application for condensation of, delay, we condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. The application is allowed. (2) FAO(08)38/95 The respective powers of the,arbitrator and of the Court to award interest fall for consideration in this appeal. The point urged. before us with regard to the interest awarded by the learned Single Judge from the date of the award till the date of payment. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that so far as the Court is concerned, it has jurisdiction to go into the question of interest only for the period subsequent to the date of decree in view of section 29 of the Arbitration Act. (3) In the award under claim No. 6, the arbitrator held that the descision was done on 18-8-81 and normally the final bill would have been paid by 18-2-82. thereforee, the amounts allowed under the award will bear interest at 9% from 18-2-82 to the date. of award and 6% i...
Tag this Judgment!Surjit Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)429; 1995(35)DRJ245
J.B. Goel, J. (1) Sukhbir Singh, Surjit Singh, Mehtab Singh and Vikram Singh, all sons of Rati Ram, four appellants in Criminal Appeal No.22/92 and Anand Prakash, son of Hoshiar Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.55/92 (in all five accused) were charged with the offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Bhim Singh and for causing injuries to Amar Singh and Hoshiar Singh in the morning of 26.6.1987 at village Rangpuri, New Delhi. All the five accused have been convicted under Sections 323/34 and 302/34, in addition Mehtab Singh under Section 324 and other four accused under section 324/34 Indian Penal Code by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and all have been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000.00 each, and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for six months under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code .; and to three months S.I. under section 323/34 and Mehtab Singh in addition has been sentenced to undergo R.I. f...
Tag this Judgment!