Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 5 of about 167 results (0.021 seconds)Optho Remedies (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC407Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are against the order dated 1-12-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines falling under Tariff Item 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They filed a Classification List No. 20/3/84 dated 23-7-1984 claiming full exemption of duty on their product 'Op-thomycetin Eye Drops' in terms of Notification No. 106/80-CE., dated 19-06-1980 which amended the Notification 116/69-C.E., dated 3-5-1969 under which patent and proprietary medicines falling under Tariff Item 14E and containing Chloramphenicol and its esters for oral and parenteral use were exempted from whole of the duty leviable thereon. Since the medicine in question was sold describing it as "for external use", the Assistant Collector Central Excise passed an order holding that the medicine 'Opthomycetin Eye Drops' was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 116/69-...
Tag this Judgment!Agarwal Metal Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT654TriDel
1. The captioned 6 appeals have been filed by the appellants against the denial of Modvat credit on the strength of certificates issued by Public Sector Undertakings namely, Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of copper, articles of copper, zinc and articles of Zinc. For manufacture of these items, they are availing Modvat credit on inputs namely, copper wire bars, zinc ingots, copper wire bars cut moulds etc.3. The Department was of the view that under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, no Modvat credit can be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of gate pass, A.R. -1, Bill of Entry or any other documents as may be prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Department was also of the view that with the issue of Trade Notice No. 93/89 dated 16.11.1989 by the Bombay Collector-I, the trade was informed that the certificate issued only by...
Tag this Judgment!Shakti Iron and Steel Re-rolling Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT236TriDel
1. The captioned ROM application is directed against the Tribunal's Final Order No. E/22/95-B1, dated 12-1-1995.2. Arguing the ROM application, Shri Harbans Singh, the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that it was urged before the Tribunal that the appellants had submitted duty paying documents but the learned Collector did not take them into account and did not consider their plea effectively. The learned Counsel also argued that it was stressed that the whole demand was time-barred and the demand was not maintainable but no order has been passed on this issue. The learned Counsel therefore, prayed that the order of the Tribunal may be recalled and modified or direction may be given to whom it has been remanded for looking into these points. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the above issues were argued at length at the time of hearing of the appeal but no decision was given; that as the case has been remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the maintainability ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. S.N. Gupta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD440(Delhi)
1. The cancellation by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of a penalty of Rs. 6,398 imposed on the assessee by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271 (1)(c) is in challenge in this appeal filed by the Revenue.2. The original assessment in this case was completed on 4-10-1982 on a total income of Rs. 7,250. Search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were conducted on 4-2-1984 at the business/ residential premises of the assessee when duplicate cash books for various years along with other "incriminating documents" were found and seized. An examination of these documents/books revealed that the entries made therein did not tally with the original books of account maintained by the assessee for the purposes of his Income-tax assessments. However, after the aforesaid search and seizure operations the assessee submitted a return of income on 26-5-1984 declaring an income of Rs. 30,000. Inasmuch as the aforesaid return had been filed after the completion of...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Rani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)500; 60(1995)DLT498
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This writ petition at the instance of the petitioner who is a physically handicapped person is directed against the decision of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited cancelling/withdrawing with immediate effect the Letter of Intent No. R:S:IC:Chant Road dated 22.3.1988 issued in favor of the petitioner.(2) In pursuance of an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet/dealership at Chant Road, District Faridabad, Haryana, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their applications for allotment of said retail outlet/dealership reserved for physically handicapped persons or Government employees who were disabled while on duty. One of the criteria/conditions to be fulfillled by the intending applicant was that the applicant should not be less than 21 years and more than 50 years of age on the date of application. The Oil Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) interviewed the petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 and on c...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Porcelains Ltd. Vs. Union of India,
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)291; 1995(35)DRJ182
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has challenged the constitutional validity of section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA' or 'the Act'). Section 20 of Sica is as under :- '20.Winding-up of sick industrial company. - (1)Where the Board, after making inquiry under section 16 and after consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all concerned parties, is of opinion that the sick industrial company is not likely to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations and that the company as a result thereof is not likely to become viable in future and that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up, it may record and forward its opinion to the concerned High Court. (2)The High Court shall, on the basis of the opinion of the Board, ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. V.K. Sanghal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC702
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Award dated March 12, 1982 passed by Shri P.R. Thakur, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi.2. The respondent Dr. V.K. Sanghal, employed in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was going on his two-wheeler scooter No. DHI-7377 after attending the meeting of Indian Dental Association at the clinic of Dr. R.K. Bali, East of Kailash, New Delhi and when he was proceeding towards Vikram Hotel, the taxi bearing Registration No. DLT-3939 came from behind and hit the scooter driven by the respondent-claimant, Dr. V.K. Sanghal. It was further alleged that the impact was so violent and forceful that the respondent and the scooter were dragged to considerable distance and as a result of the accident, he suffered serious injuries on his left leg and suffered compound fracture on left leg Tibia and Febula; that there was crush injury of the left leg below knee as well, besides injuries all over the body. The respondent was removed t...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT795TriDel
1. These are six appeals filed by the party and cross objections filed by the Department involving a common issue and, therefore, they are clubbed together.2. The point to be considered in all these cases is that whether margin of profit is to be added to the goods captively consumed and if so to what extent. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Metal Containers which they used captively for Stable Bleaching [Powder]. The Assistant Collector while approving the price list with reference to Section 4(i)(b) read with Central Excise Rules has enhanced the margin of profit from 5% to 10% observing that in the absence of any specific basis available for determining margin of profit, 10% margin of profit could not be malacious or unjudicious. On appeal filed by the party the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the party that adding 10% margin of profit was arbitrary and since the margin of profit is not available in respect of Metal Containers used captively margin of...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Forest Inds. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT138TriDel
1. This is an appeal against order dated 21-10-1983 passed by the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of articles of wood falling under T.I. 68. During the relevant period they opted for assessment of their goods on invoice price under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. They were selling in the market firewood at Rs. 30/- per 100 Kg and saw dust at Rs. 3/- per bag. However, in terms of an agreement they were selling firewood and saw dust to their employees at Rs. 3/- per 100 Kg and at 0.25 per bag respectively. In respect of the sale to the employees the respondents were paying excise duty on the actual invoice price in terms of Notification No. 120/75. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent seeking to recover differential duty on the grounds that the reduced price at which firewood and saw dust was sold by the company to its employees could not be deemed as the correct assessable value of the goods. The Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT191TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Coats Viyella India Ltd. (Madura Industrial Textiles) have requested that the case posted for hearing today be adjourned to later date as their Learned Counsel is not in a position to appear before the Bench due to his pre-occupation. They have also requested that the appeal may be transferred to the Madras Bench.3. Since the appeal is of year 1990 and it is not covered by the instructions on the subject of transfer of files to other Benches from Delhi, we decline the request.4. The matter is now posted for mention on 27th December, 1995. The appellants should report the progress of the case reported to be pending in the High Court....
Tag this Judgment!