Delhi Court April 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.
Greeta Musical Instru. Mfg. and Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT412TriDel
1. The notice for hearing on 28-2-1996 was duly served on the appellants but inspite of it, neither any appearance was caused nor any communication was received requesting for adjournment or otherwise. The matter was therefore, taken up yesterday but was allowed to lie over for today.2. In view of the above position, we have gone through the Appeal Memorandum and the documents enclosed with the Appeal and heard the learned DR.3. It is observed from the Appeal Memorandum that the appellants have stated that they are a 100% export oriented unit set up in 1992 for the manufacture of Acoustic and Electric Guitars and commenced commercial production in May, 1983. The manufacture is done under Customs bond and a Preventive Officer is attached to the Factory. They import Guitar hardwares, paints consumables and spares etc. and procure timber locally. They have a Green Card issued by the Ministry of Commerce.With reference to Appx 23 of the Import Export Policy 1985-88, they were importing Gu...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Manish Vinyles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT556TriDel
1. The appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 66-CE/DLH/92, dated 28-1-1992 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi allowing the appeal of the present respondents and holding them to be eligible for Modvat credit in respect of release paper used by them in the manufacture of coated leather fabrics.2. It is urged in the appeal that the said decision of the Collector (Appeals) is erroneous as the material in question acts as a carrier/conveyor belt of plastisol on to fabric. This is capable of use 4 to 5 times and would satisfy the definition of apparatus or instrument. Since apparatus and instrument are covered by the exclusion clause in the definition of input under Rule 57A, Modvat credit would not be available, it has been pleaded.3. Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDR is present on behalf of the appellant Collector. The respondents are not represented though notice had been issued to them by registered post on 10-...
H.L. Sethi Vs. Reserve Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi425
Cyriac Joseph, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is against the order of the respondent Reserve Bank of India, rejecting the plea of the petitioner, a retired employee of the Reserve Bank, to exercise his option for Pension Scheme under the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations 1990. (2) The petitioner was a confirmed Staff Officer Grade-D (Deputy Chief Officer) in the Reserve Bank of India. Since he was attaining 58 years of age as on 2nd November, 1985, the petitioner was to retire on superannuation on 30th November, 1985. However, by Annexure-I, letter dated 17th October, 1985, the second respondent informed the petitioner as follows:- 'IN terms of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 26 of the Staff Regulations, you will be entitled to avail or ordinary leave earned but not availed of as on the date of reretirement subject to a maximum period of six months in which case you will be deemed to have retired from service on the expiry of the leave. It will be open to you to enc...
Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT538TriDel
1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co.Ltd., the issue for our consideration is that when Alumina Sulphate is cleared from the factory in the powder form and duly packed in, whether the cost of powdering and packing charges form a part of assessable value. The appellants among others were engaged in the manufacture of Alumina Sulphate. A part of the production was delivered in lump form loose. There is no dispute with regard to such Alumina Sulphate cleared loose in lump form. In some cases when the customer so required, the Alumina Sulphate was delivered in powder form. As the goods in powder form could not be cleared without packing, they were duly packed in suitable packing. The appellants have contended that as the goods were delivered in some cases in lump form without packing as such, the cost of powdering and packing should not be included in the assessable value. The ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had held that when the goods were...
Supreme Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT306TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. P-38/90, dated 26-11-1990 of Collector (Appeals).2. The issue relates to classification of rubber shields and Tank Fuel/Flexible Fuel Bag Tank to be used as inner lining of the fuel tanks.3. Arguing for the appellants Ld. Consultant submits that in the first place, even though Assistant Collector has confirmed the demand for 6 months only even this demand cannot be sustained for the reasons that since this demand alleging suppression was issued by Assistant Collector and not Collector, the entire order is vitiated.Subsequently, however, the Ld. Consultant fairly conceded that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Safari Industries reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 197 he does not press this plea.4. Arguing on the merits of the case he submits that authorities below have held the goods as classifiable under Heading 4016 as against 4008 as claimed by them. Before elaborating further in regard to the applicability of Headi...
Coll. of Central Ex. Vs. Best and Crompton Engineering
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT281TriDel
1. The issue for determination in the above appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 8-5-1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras is the classification of Slurry Pumps manufactured by the respondents herein.2. The claim of the assessees/respondents is that the pumps in question are classifiable under TI 30A of the Central Excise Tariff as Power Driven Pumps while the Department's contention is that classification under TI 68 would be correct as TI 30A is confined to Power Driven Pumps meant for liquids and that slurry is not a liquid but a mixture of liquid and solid in the form of paste.3. The respondents have asked for a decision on merits on the basis of earlier order of the Tribunal classifying an identical item under T.I.30A. Hence, we heard the learned DR and perused the records and the judgment cited.4. We find that the issue regarding classification of an identical item was decided by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Fai...
C.C.E. Vs. Allied Textile Leather Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT522TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal, dated 13-4-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay who had held that as the prices charged by the respondent M/s. Allied Textile Leather Inds., Ah-medabad were fully commercial, they were eligible for the exemption under Notification No.120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The case had chequered history. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Leather pickers falling under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and were availing of the exemption under Notification No. 129/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975.Initially, a show-cause notice was issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise denying the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-C.E., to the assessee. This show-cause notice was confirmed by the Asstt. Collector.They had filed a writ petition in Gujarat High Court which had remanded the matter to the Asstt. Collector. In fresh proceedings, the Asstt.Collector agreed with the contention ...
K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC924Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that :- "In view of above discussion, I, therefore, find no merits in the appellant's contentions warranting any interference with the adjudication order in this case. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. Since the issue, the appellant's contentions as well as the facts of the case remain the same, I find that the aforesaid appeal order is squarely applicable to the present case. I, therefore, find no merits in the appellant's contentions warranting any interference with the adjudication order in this case, and I reject this appeal." 2. The facts of the case in brief are the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel castings. For steel castings preparation of sand mould as an intermediate product is necessary. For drying sand mould the appellants were using CO2. They were procuring CO2 from outside on payment of duty the appellants claimed Modvat...
Poonam SoIn Vs. Vinod K. Soin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC206
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The revision has been filed by the wife, petitioner herein, challenging the order dated 9.1.1990 of the learned A.D.J. Delhi fixing interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (For short 'the Act') at Rs. 2,500/- per month and directing payment of sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards the litigation expenses pending the suit filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act for dissolution of marriage.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to the fact that the respondent is the Managing Director of Companies and as such his monthly income from each Company cannot be less than Rs. 36,000/-, the impugned order fixing the interim maintenance at a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month is not sustainable. He further contended that the amount of the interim alimony should be fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per month and the respondent should be directed to pay Rs. 22,000/-per month towards the litigation expenses. Learned Counsel for the respondent h...
Step Cosmetics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT734TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Step Cosmetics, Thane ('Step' for short), the issue our consideration is whether the cosmetics and toilet preparations were manufactured by the appellants, a proprietary unit, in the name of M/s. Arkay Industries ('Arkay' for short), whose partners were the son and wife of the Proprietor of M/s. Step. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill, who had adjudicated the matter, had held hat for the purposes of Notification No. 140/83-C.E., dated 5-5-1983, the clearance value of the cosmetics and toilet preparations both cleared by M/s. Step and those cleared in the name of M/s. Arkay had to be clubbed together. He had observed, "I have no doubt that all efforts by both the units to show that they are separate legal entities are paper entries with a view to mis-lead authorities to believe that transactions were between independent parties." He confirmed the central excise duty demand of Rs. 1,28,220.25 demanded from M/s. Step. He also imposed a redemption...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »