Delhi Court November 1996 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dalmia Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC104Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a reference application filed by Revenue seek reference on the Final Order Nos. A/575-576-96-NB to Hon'ble High Court to decide the following questions which is prayer to 1. Whether the provisions of Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inserted on 1-11-1993 are applicable retrospectively from 30-12-1988, or 2. Whether Rule 57G prohibits taking of credit on inputs received prior to filing of declaration, or/and 3. Whether the credit can be allowed under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the inputs for which no declaration was filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.It has been contended in the grounds for reference that in Rule 57G(1) that every manufacturer intending to take credity of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A, shall file a declaration with the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over his factory indicating the descriptions of the final products manufactured in his factory and the inputs int...
Nirmal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC172Tri(Delhi)
1. This case involves the absolute confiscation of a Revolver make ERMA 32 bore, on the observation that where as the then Import Trade Control Policy permitted the gifts to be made by a blood relation residing abroad to an Indian the subject revolver was gifted to the appellant by someone who was not a blood relation and in fact whose identity was not readily known to the appellant. The present appellant was before the Tribunal on two earlier occasions in this very case and has come for third time in appeal against impugned order dated 28-4-1994 upholding the absolute confiscation.2. Shri N. Singh, Advocate submitted that absolute confiscation was not warranted.The appellant is a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Hisar. He required the weapon for self-protection and that he holds a valid licence. He submitted that in a number of cases established practice of the Department was to offer redemption of fire-arms imported in contravention of the Import Trade (Control) Provisions on appropriat...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Camphor and Allied Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC334Tri(Delhi)
1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, was paying duty at the tariff rate though entitled to benefit of exemption Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976. The Notification exempted excise duty in excess of 75% of the duty on the clearances in excess of the base clearance in the base period as contemplated in the Notification.Respondent filed declaration on 17-9-1976 before the Assistant Collector for determination by him of the base period and base clearances so as to enable respondent to avail benefit of the Notification. Approval was given on 27-5-1977. Meanwhile respondent was paying full amount of duty and assessments were made on monthly RT 12 returns. By letter dated 6-6-1976 respondent addressed to Assistant Collector [and] it was pointed out that exemption benefit could not be availed in time in view of the belated approval and respondent was entitled to refund of the excess duty paid. By this letter respondent requested that the excess amount may be adjusted ...
Ganga Bishan and Sons Vs. Assessing Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD341(Delhi)
1. This appeal was in the first instance fixed for hearing on 29th October, 1996 when the learned counsel for the assessee made a request in the Court seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The learned D.R. did not raise any objection to the aforesaid request and the matter was concluded. Later on, however, the contents of the withdrawal application were perused and this is what was stated therein : "Since the appeal against the quantum has already been rejected by the ITAT, the present appeal against Order under section 271(1)(c) is hereby withdrawn." 2. It was also found that the assessee's counsel had not filed the copy of the order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. In order to seek necessary clarifications the appeal was refixed for hearing and both the parties were heard.3. The learned counsel for the assessee was specifically asked by the Bench as to whether he understood the likely implications of the withdrawal of the appeal before the Tribunal vis-a-vis the levy of penalty un...
Pranav Saraswat Vs. Sapna Saraswat and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: 66(1997)DLT522; I(1997)DMC527
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) It is stated by Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Parashar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that all the disputes including the disputes relating to articles given to respondent No.1 at the time of marriage as also the allegations in the complaint filed by respondentNo. 1 have been amicably resolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and that the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 be quashed in the ends of justice as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the same.(2) It is suggested from the statements of the petitioner and respondent No. 1,separately recorded, that all disputes have been amicably settled and that they have parted company and that their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent in H.M.A. No. 426/96 vide decree dated 5.10.1996 passed by the learned Adj, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is also prayed by both that F.I.R. No.222/95 under Sections 406/498-...
Niagara Hotels and Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)464; I(1997)BC373; 65(1997)DLT826; 1997(40)DRJ30
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,61,098.00 against the defendant averring that the plaintiff is a Company, duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Shri Baldev Kishan, a Director of the plaintiff-Company is competent to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Company. It is alleged that the plaintiff-Company purchased a commercial plot No. 4, at the District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi in an open auction from the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA') for a consideration of Rs. 1,22,30,512.00 and the defendant-DDA executed a perpetual lease deed dated the 10th August, 1984 in favor of the plaintiff-Company by virtue of which the lease-hold rights in respect of the above said plot were transferred in favor of the plaintiff-Company. 1.2.It is further alleged that the following amount has been collected and charged from th...
A.G. Daftary Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT584TriDel
1. The appellant herein, M/s. A.G. Daftary imported 42 bundles containing 251 pieces of Australian White Wood Logs valued at Rs. 4,19,235.00 (C.I.F.). The appellant claimed the clearance of the said goods as wood roughly squared and half-squared but not further manufactured by classifying the same under Heading : 4403.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 160/88-Cus., dated 13-5-1988. Vide Serial No. 6 of the said Notification, wood of the description as mentioned therein was exempted from so much of the Auxiliary Duties of Customs calculated at the rate of 5% of the value of the goods. In the Bill of Entry No. 4868, dated 14-9-1988, the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under the said Notification was claimed by the appellant. As the Customs Authorities entertained a view that the goods in question were not wood roughly squared or half-squared as the same have been reported to be sawn lengthwise on two sides, they are not entitled t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pawan Tyres (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT635TriDel
1. Respondent was engaged in the manufacture of tyres and air bags falling under erstwhile TI-68. The dispute in the appeal relates to duty payable on air bags in respect of clearances for the home consumption made during the period 31-12-1984 to 28-12-1985. Though the air bags were intended for use for captive consumption, actually they were cleared for home consumption without payment of duty. Show cause notice dated 30-4-1986 was issued demanding duty of Rs. 30,389.25 on assessable value of Rs. 2,02,595.27. Notice also proposed imposition of penalty. Respondent claimed benefit of exemption which was rejected by the Additional Collector. Respondent contended that the amount of Rs. 30,389.25 must be treated the part of the cum-duty price and assessable value should be worked out at the cum-duty basis. Additional Collector accepted this contention and held respondent liable to pay duty of Rs. 21,610.66.2. Department has no case that besides price collected, any amount has been collect...
S. Hari Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT393TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. On two earlier occasions also appellant was absent. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, SDR and perused the papers.2. Order impugned in this appeal directs confiscation of certain seized goods with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine Rs. 25,000/- and imposes penalty of Rs. 10,000/- to the importer M/s. Krystal Yarns & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order was issued to the importer.However, this appeal has been filed not by the importer but by M/s. S.Hari Agencies who was described as Clearing, Forwarding. Shipping, Warehousing and Transport Agents. In the letter accompanying the appeal the appellant claims to be Authorised Representatives of the importer.There is no statement that the appellant holds any Power of Attorney or Letter of Authority from the importer. Apparently the appellant is Custom House Agent of the importer. Custom House Agent without specific authority as required by law to file an appeal cannot file an ...
Hitkari Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)(69)LC342Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, in their four price lists filed during the period 11.9.1981 to 13.10.1981 sought deduction on account of cash discount to the extent of 3%. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner approved the deductions subject to the conditions that the same was made available uniformly to all buyers, who paid cash at the time of removal or within seven days thereof in a subsequent verification, the officers found that even where in several cases a failure of the buyers to pay within stipulated limit, full value of the goods was charged, duty was paid on value after deducting the cash discount. Duty or such discount wrongly retained, was calculated at Rs. 1,43,228.20 BED and Rs. 7,261.42 SED. After issue of a show cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand for this amount. The Commissioner (Appeals), having upheld this order, the present appeal has been filed before us.2. Shri S.K. Mehta Id. Advocate referred to the Final Order No.2112/96-A of the CEGAT in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »