Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 141 results (0.016 seconds)Collector of C. Excise Vs. Lenec Institute of Pharma (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT60TriDel
1. These are a bunch of four appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II against four separate orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay whereby the latter had disposed of four appeals filed before him by M/s. Lenec Institute of Pharma (P) Ltd. who are respondents herein holding that they were not liable to excise duty in respect of their product marked 'PD-TOL 800'.The Collector, while passing the impugned order, had relied, inter alia upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Indo French Pharmaceutical Co., Madras v. Union of India and Anr., reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 478) 2. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, Shri J.P. Singh, the learned Departmental Representative fairly concedes at the outset that there is a recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C). This judgment...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Delhi Cloth Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT685TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay, dated 8-3-1985. The Learned Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector (Refund) who rejected the party's claim for reassessment of imported product "Beam Bearing Assembly" as spare parts for B.C. Spoole under Chapter Heading 84.38(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The original assessment of the imported items had been done under Heading 84.63(2) on the ground that the imported parts were parts of plain shaft bearing and thus were transmission parts of machines and therefore, they were classifiable to customs duty under Heading 84.63(1) of the CTA, 1975.The importer had submitted that even though the beam bearing assembly as such is a transmission bearing assembly, this is not a general transmission bearing assembly but it is a specialised one, which is only used in the warping beam in their factory. It had been submitted that the imported parts were to be ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Shankar Varnish and Phenyle
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT163TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) filed by the Collector of Central Excise.2. The respondent has not appeared for hearing or sought adjournment.Therefore, the matter is being decided on merits after hearing the appellant.3. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had allowed Modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules on the inputs consumed in the manufacture of finished goods lying in stock as on 15-9-1989.Subsequently the Assistant Collector observed that Rule 57H has been amended prior to this date and credit could not be allowed on the inputs contained in the stock of finished products. Therefore, after issuing show cause notice, and considering the assessee's reply, he confirms the demand. In appeal Collector held that once the credit has been allowed by the Assistant Collector which could not be reversed without recurrence of Section 35E of the Act. This appeal is against that order. The provision of [Rule 57(9)] a...
Tag this Judgment!Sanden Vikas (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT540TriDel
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether goods described as 'air conditioning kits' including compressor and blower are eligible for benefit of exemption provided in the Notification No. 166, dated 1-3-1986.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of car air-conditioners.Notification 166 which was issued on 1-3-1986 gave exemption to parts and accessories of refrigerators and air-conditioning appliances and machinery as also to such complete machinery on 20-3-1990. The amendment inserted vide Sl. No. 8 to the Notification which exempted parts and accessories of car air-conditioner including car air-conditioning kit. Subsequently, the Notification was, further, amended on 25-7-1991 by inserting an Explanation to provide the term car conditioning kit would exclude kit or assembly which contains automatic gas compressor with or without magnetic clutch. Subsequent to the amendment to the Notification on 20-3-1990, the appellant filed eleven classification lists during the period from...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(60)LC236Tri(Delhi)
1. This application seeks waiver of pre-de-posit of duty of Rs. 1,44,52,690/- and stay of recovery proceedings thereof.1.2. The issue for determination falls within a narrow compass: admissibility or otherwise of Modvat Credit in case inputs are used in the manufacture of products declared as final products which in turn are cleared without duty by availing exemption subject to procedure under Chapter-X being followed.2. The appellant is a Limited Company and, according to Ld. Advocate, have various divisions in various premises of Faridabad. Separate Central Excise Licences have however been obtained in respect of each premises and Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants were availing the benefit of Modvat Credit under Rule 57-A of Central Excise Rules after filing Modvat declaration under Rule 57-G declaring their final product as tractor parts. Since the appellants were availing exemption under Notification No. 217/86-CE dt.2.4.1986 and clearin...
Tag this Judgment!V. Enrico Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]55ITD121(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri Manzoor Ahmed Bakhshi, J.M. - This bunch of 12 appeals relating to expatriate employees of Italian company involving common issues are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. All the 12 assessees are Italian nationals in the employment of non-resident Italian company, namely, M/s Snampoogetti, s.p.a. having its registered office and principal place of business at Milano, Italy. The said company has a liaison officer in New Delhi, India in connection with the contracts entered into by it from time to time with Indian concerns for providing them technical know-how, technical services and supervisory services for the construction, assembly, installation, erection and commissioning of industrial plants in India. The appellants had been deputed to work in India and their stay in connection with their employment during the previous year relevant to Asst. year 1991-92 exceeded 183 days. Exemption u/s 10(6)(vii) was not claimed by any of the appellants. The salary paid to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Gupta Vs. Gita Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ65
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This common order shall govern the disposal of CR. 656/88 and CR. 667/88, two revisions arising out of two orders passed at two stages of the same proceedings. In both the cases, the husband, who is non-applicant/defendant in the proceedings before the trial court, is the petitioner. The parties are Hindu spouse. Marriage between them was solemnized at Delhi. It appears that they had last resided at Rohtak. The District Judge, Rohtak passed an ex parte decree dated 11.5.1981 annulling the marriage on a petition preferred by the husband. Thereafter the wife initiated proceed ings under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of the District judge Delhi. An application under section 24 of the Act was also filed. The husband look a preliminary objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court submitting that it was the Court at Rohtak alone which was competent to entertain the proceedings. By order dated 29.8.1988 the husband's objection to the territoria...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT692TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, manufacture man-made fabrics falling under Item 22 (i)(a) Central Excise Tariff as it stood prior to 28-2-1986.The appellants used to send these fabrics to a processor for the purpose of impregnation, coating and lamination with preparations of cellulosic derivatives on job work basis. Thereafter, the fabrics became classifiable under Item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff as impregnated, etc. fabric. The issue in the case relates to the handloom cess payable under the Khadi & Other Handloom Industries Development Act, 1953 on fabrics impregnated, coated and laminated, falling under Item 22(3) C.E.T. Notification 115(E), dated 1-3-1975 issued under the Handloom Industries Act exempted all varieties of cloth which are for the time being exempt from Central Excise Duty. The second proviso to Notification, however, laid down that nothing contained in the notification will apply to processed man-made fabrics which are exempt from central excise duty. When t...
Tag this Judgment!Santha Industrials Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC258Tri(Delhi)
1. All the above appeals arises from a common order-in-original dated 27-7-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore.2. By this order, the ld. Collector has held that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. is not available to them and that the fragmentation of manufacturing activities has been done in a manner to avail the benefit of the said notification only to evade payment of duty. In that view, he has confirmed the duty invoking larger period under Section 11A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,25,88,822.03 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. Santha industrials and Rs. 25,000/- each on the other ten units. The facts of the case arising in his appeals are that on 7-1-1989, the Headquarters Preventive Unit along with other officers of this Collectorate visited M/s. Santha Industrials and the other ten units and scrutinised the records and recovered certain documents. On further scrutiny and investigation conducted by M/s. Santha Industrials, the foll...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Unibros Vs. All India Radio and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi368; 59(1995)DLT539
ORDERDr. M. K. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition by petitioner is directed against the order dated 10-10-1994 issued by the Chief Engineer (Civil), Civil Construction Wing of the Directorate General, All India Radio, suspending the business with the petitioner for tendering for the works under Civil Construction Wing at All India Radio. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is enlisted as Class 1 (Building) contractors in the department of Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Civil Engineering Wing), New Delhi. Because of the aforesaid enlistment the petitioner is entitled to give tender for construction work of any amount/level. Through press notice dated 7-10-1994 respondent No. 3 invited tenders for the work of 'Construction Purview Theatre 'B' Wing at Siri Fort Auditorium, New Delhi. In pursuance of the said notice inviting tender the petitioner vide letter dated 5-10-1994 requested the respondent No. 3 to supply the tender documents for the works mentioned in the said notice i...
Tag this Judgment!