Delhi Court March 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.
Ajim Khan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3140; 1996(37)DRJ694
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Here is yet another case under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which meets its Waterloo on account of non-compliance of section 50 of the Act. (2) Let me first provide a thumb nail description of the case as set up by the State. We are told that on October 7, 1990 on receipt of secret information that the appellant was having opium in his possession and was standing at the bus stand Vikas Kunj. Outer Ring Road, a raiding party was formed, the appellant was nabbed and subsequent to his refusal to get himself searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, one kilogram opium was recovered from his possession. (3) As we all know by now, Section 50 of the Act requires that the person to be searched has to be informed whether he would like to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Though the Counsel for the appellant insists that his option must necessarily be given in writing. I do not agree. Howeve...
New Shorrock Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT53TriDel
1. This order is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.M-1695/AHD/877/86, dated 7-8-1987 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants have filed a classification list No. 68 dated 4-3-1984 claiming exemption under Notification No. 34/84 for their sort No. 4204 with composition of 58% cotton plus 42% polyester. The sample on test was found to contain 60.79% cotton and 39.20% polyester. The Assistant Collector who issued the demand notice subsequently during adjudication proceedings withdrew the demand notice after allowing tolerance limit of 1% polyester fibre. On appeal by Revenue the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's Order holding that he could not take cognizance of the Board's letter No. 261/19-12/76-CE-8 dated 25-2-1977 as quasi-judicial authority is not bound by such administrative orders.3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. representative of the appellant company submits that CBEC as far back as 1977 had laid down that...
Synthetics and Chemicals Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT288TriDel
1. These appeals arise from a separate orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad. Both the appeals raise common question of law and facts, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Synthetic Rubber" and they availed MODVAT Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They had taken Credit of countervailing duty paid on 2 imported inputs namely, "Hegatreat and Hegafilm" for alleged use in the manufacture of Synthetic Rubber during the period March, 1986 to May, 1989 in respect of Appeal E/385/92 involving duty of Rs. 6,65,014.19 and during the period April, 1990 to August, 1990 amounting to Rs. 1,71,727.70 in respect of Appeal E/384/92. The department took the view that these two items were used in the generation of steam for running the machines and not in the manufacture of Synthetic Rubber and as a consequence had issued the show cause notices and after ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Atam Concast Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT360TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the impugned order dated 8-8-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh by which the Collector (Appeals) has held that the respondents, herein, will be eligible for modvat credit @ Rs. 600.00 P.M.T. on ship breaking scrap of iron & steel received by them as input for their final product.2. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. S.D.R. contended that the Collector (Appeals) order erred in holding that the respondents are eligible for the higher modvat credit and ignored the provisions of Notification 177/86 which restricts the modvat credit only to Rs. 500.00 P.M.T.3. Shri Kulwinder Singh, ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted d that the issue is no more res Integra and referred to a series of decisions in their own case wherein the Tribunal had held that the respondents have rightly availed of the modvat credit on the scrap at the higher rate.4. On consideration of the su...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermax Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT127TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-7-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd., Pune.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of the goods for Captive Power Plant of M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. ('GHC' for short), under exemption Notification No. 71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985. The GHC were engaged in the manufacture of soda ash. For their energy requirements, they wanted to instal a Captive Power Plant. The Respondents - M/s.Thermax Pvt. Ltd. has imported boilers and accessories for use in the Captive Power Plant of GHC. Under exemption Notification No.71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985, the goods falling under Heading No. 84.66 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Tariff) when imported for the Power Projects attracted nil rate of customs duty. The respondents had applied for registration of Contract under Heading No. 84.66 of the ...
Livingpoint Sales (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT132TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, manufacture Automobile coolant liquid cum Anti-Freezing preparation which is classifiable under Heading 3820.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On 30-6-1987, the Central Excise Officers visited their premises and found that they had been clearing these goods upto 9-2-1987 without taking out a Central Excise license and without payment of duty thereon. Shri Uday Singh, the Director of the appellants in a statement on 30-6-1987, said that they had been manufacturing the goods since May, 1986. They import Mono Ethylene Glycol from Japan which is their main raw material. He informed the officers that they had obtained a Small Scale Industries Certificate, but had not taken out the Central Excise license. The officers found, on the basis of value of clearances of the appellants from the financial year 1986-87 to 1987-88 that the appellants should have paid Central Excise duty @ 5% and which would come to Rs. 5,16,363.21. This demand was computed after consideri...
Vikas Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT32TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad confirming the orders of the Assistant Collector by which he had classified Carbide Sludge arising in the course of manufacture of acetylene gas by the appellants under Chapter sub-heading 2849.90 of the CETA, 1985 and confirming demands of duty of Rs. 18,216/- and Rs. 3,520/-. However the lower appellate authority set aside the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.2. The appellants requested for a decision on merits; hence we heard Shri J.M. Sharma, learned DR and perused the records.3. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the production of industrial gases such as Oxygen, Nitrogen and dissolved Acetylene.It has its registered office and factory at Vikas Nagar, Renukoot. For production of dissolved acetylene gas, the raw material is calcium carbide which the appellant purchases from the manufacturers. The process of production of dissolved acetylene gas is unde...
Gandhi and Associates Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT463TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. GSM-2177/89, dated 31-10-1989 of Collector (Appeals).2. The appellants had claimed exemption under Serial No. 38 of Notification 132/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 in the case of certain articles like Tanks, Wash Basins, Domes, Channels, Water Tanks, etc.The Assistant Collector while classifying such articles under Chapter 39 allowed exemption to these articles holding that vide Serial No. 38 of Notification 132/86-C.E. these are articles of plastic. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside this order holding that articles of plastics are exempted under the aforesaid notification only if such articles are made out of goods falling under Heading Numbers 39.01 to 39.15. Since the impugned goods are in addition made of fibre glass, these cannot be considered as articles made wholly of plastic falling under 39.01 to 39.15. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and denied exemption. Hence this appeal.3. None presen...
B.K. Kapur Vs. P.D. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)209; 1996(37)DRJ207
Arun Kumar, J. (1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17th December 1993 passed by the Addl.Rent Controller who has been imp leaded as respondent No.1 By the impugned order the respondent No.1 allowed oral evidence to be led in support of the objections filed by the objector respondent No.2 against the order dated 31st October 1980 of the then Addl.Rent Controller granting permission for fixed term lease by the petitioners of the suit property in favor of respondent No.2 for a period of five and half years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the Act). By virtue of the objections filed by respondent No.2 about 12 days before the expiry of the period of lease the respondent No.2 has been able to drag on the matter for almost ten years and has continued to enjoy the suit premises and retain its possession so far. The necessary facts for the present purposes are:-(2) The pe...
Printorium Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT107TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. GSM/2025/89-AHD, dated 9-10-1989. The issue that falls for determination relates to dutiability or otherwise of printed glas-sine poly-laminated printed paper rolls. Collector (Appeals) held these products to be classifiable under 4811.39 and denied to the appellant the benefit of Notification No. 49/87 as converted paper.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that they purchase plain glassine poly-laminated paper and subject the same to printing with designs and names of the medicines in the factory. Such product was a converted type of paper and is exempted under Notification No. 49/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987. He, however, submitted that it is true that originally they claimed classification under Chapter 49. The Collector (Appeals) himself has held that the primary use of such paper is for packing and labelling, and therefore, he ought to have held such type of paper as converted paper. In this connection, he cite...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »