Delhi Court July 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.
Rishi Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT110TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, manufacture steel product and articles falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have opted to avail of the facility of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products. Proceedings were initiated against them by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur by issue of show casue notice on 6-11-1991 directing them to show casue why an amount of Rs. 24,84,652.49 should not be demanded from them and penalty be not imposed on them for the following reasons : (1) Deemed credit of Rs. 3,08,322.50 on 486.535 MT of raw materials received under various names like "procesed scrap", "M.S. scrap", "re-rollable scrap" and "processed re-rollable scrap" was availed without declaring the same in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. (2) A credit of Rs. 1,02,904.83 on 163.340 MT of various inputs declared as burning loss has been availed which is liable to be denied in terms of Rule 57D....
Shree Shyam Filaments Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT655TriDel
1. The two issues involved in this appeal are whether silicon spray is a declared input under Rule 57G and whether it is eligible for Modvat credit as an input as per Rule 57A or is a part of machinery/tools.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Polypropylene Filament Yarn. The appellants were taking Modvat credit on the inputs. It was alleged by the Department that silicon spray was not declared in the declaration filed under Rule 57G and that it was not an input as provided under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Lower Authorities therefore, denied them the Modvat credit on this item.3. Shri Jogdeep K. Sablok, Vice President of the appellants' firm submitted that silicon spray is a surface active agent; that it was classifiable under Tariff Heading 3403.00; that surface active agent classifiable under 3403.00 was declared in their declaration filed under Rule 57G on 11-8-1992. The appellants also submitted that in terms of the tec...
Prahlad Singh Chadha Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT200TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against order No. 33, dated 28-12-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bhubaneswar in relation to goods imported purportedly under OGL in six containers described as Fax Machines, Automotive parts, Hand-tools, Clutch Assembly etc. as per two Bills of Entry in respect of three containers each at declared price of Rs. 7,43,068.88 CIF and Rs. 6,46,384.80 CIF respectively. The Collector enhanced the value in all to Rs. 60,54,298.64 and also held that some of the items, namely, car tyres, auto fans, car lamps (bulbs) and car coolants required specific licence which the importers did not possess.Accordingly various items of goods were confiscated under Section 111(m), or Section 111(b) or Section 111(m) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively. However, redemption was allowed on payment of separate amounts as fine in regard to each Bill of Entry. Six containers were also confiscated, allowing redemption on payment of fine quantified. Differential duty ...
Union of India Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi54
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against a judgment and decree D/-28th Sept. 1979 passed by learned Additional District Judge in MCA No. 3/78 by remanding the matter and reversing the finding in issue No. 1 relating to the territorial jurisdiction given by learned Sub-Judge 1st Class on 1st April 1978 and by holding that Suit No. 224 / 77 could be filed in Delhi Courts and that the appeal was maintainable.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are as under :--The plaintiff/respondent New India Assurance Company Ltd. instituted a Suit No. 224/77 against Union of India for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- for non-delivery, short delivery and damages etc; caused to consignment of 800 bundles of safety matches entrusted to the, Railway Authorities at Srivilliputtur for delivery at Sriganga Nagar. In all there were three suits i.e. Nos. 784/70, 7/74 and 224/77 filed by New India Assurance Co- Ltd. against Union of India. Two other suit Nos. 160/77 and 216/77 were filed by Kohin...
Bhajan Kaur Vs. Delhi Administration Through the Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)333; 3(1996)CLT337; 1996(38)DRJ203; ILR1996Delhi754
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner, a window of a riot victim, seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000.00 awarded to her on account of the death of her husband. (2) Shri Narain Singh, petitioner's husband, lost his life on November 1, 1984, in the riots which took place after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. On the fateful day he was traveling by Bombay Ferozepur Janta Express Train. According to the Fir No. 355 dated November 1, 1984, lodged at the Police Station New Delhi Railway Station around 12.30 Noon, the train slopped at Tughlakabad Railway Station where 300-350 villagers surrounded it. They pulled out 25/26 Sikh passengers from the train and killed them. The persons killed included Narain Singh son of Jawahar Singh, resident of Village Bhalajala, Tehsil Taran Taran, District Amritsar, Punjab (for particulars see death certificate at page 6 of the writ record). (3) On October 20, 1986, after about two years of the ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Pragati Computer
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT573TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras granting relief in respect of Item 3-100 Controller Cards. The Customs examination report of the imported showed that they were printed circuit. Therefore the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 232/83, dated 18-8-1983 was extended to the item.2. The Revenue is contending in this appeal that the relevant Notification granted exemption to the goods falling within the Chapter 38 or Chapter 84 or 85 or 90 or 92 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act on the conditions stipulated therein of actual user etc. It is also stated that the expression "Printed Circuits and Printed Circuit Boards" appearing in the Notification would cover only conventional Printed Circuit Boards (say copper clad laminate boards) which have been worked upon. It is stated that it would not cover the goods described in the invoices as "Controller Card" and amplified in the examination report as "Printed Circuit Board...
C.C.E. Vs. Goetze India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT513TriDel
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against the order in appeal No.228/CE/CHD/95, dated 29-9-1995 passed by Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.1.2 The issue that falls for determination is the admissibility or otherwise of Aluminium Oxide used in removing impurities in Aluminium scrap which in turn is used in the manufacture of piston rings, and cylinder liners.2. Arguing for the Revenue, the Ld. D.R. submits that Aluminium oxide has no direct usage in or in relation to the final product and is used only in preparing raw materials for the manufacture of final product.In these circumstances, since there is no direct relation with the manufacturing process resulting in the final products, the Modvat credit is not admissible.3. Arguing for the Respondents, the Ld. Consultant submits that the department itself has been consistently allowing Modvat credit on Aluminium oxide. Aluminium oxide is used in relation [to] the manufacture of final products and enters : the stream of ma...
Garg Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT495TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that in the facts and circumstances, the original authority has rightly modified the classification lists; disallowed the arbitrary Modvat credits and rejected the appeals.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of DPC aluminium and copper wires. The appellants filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1993 stating that they will pay duty on the normal rates and avail Modvat credit. The appellants are not registered as a small scale unit with Directorate of Industries or Development Commissioner and their value of clearances for the previous financial year are less than Rs. 200 lakhs. The appellants were also not registered as DGTD unit. It was alleged that since the appellants were entitled to exemption under Clause 2 Para 1 of the Notification 1/93 as amended by Notification 84/93 and nil rate of duty was applica...
R.D. Alloys Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT507TriDel
1. The appellants is aggrieved with the order dated 29-9-1987 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay rejecting the plea of the appellants to treat the imported product "Ferro-chrome" within the meaning of the term "non-consumable store"; and grant them the waiver of interest beyond the period of 3 months of warehousing as provided under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. As a result, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority for recovery of interest and of rejecting the refund claim.2. Before the Collector (Appeals), the importer pleaded that as per Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962, they can keep the item Ferro-chrome as non-consumable item for one year. The learned Collector has held that the appellants had been permitted to warehouse the goods "Ferro-chrome" under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962, on execution of a bond and the goods were permitted to be warehoused for a period of 3 months in terms of Section 61(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The le...
Satish Chandra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1210; 1996(38)DRJ219
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Railway gave a contract for running the book stall at New Delhi Railway Station to M/s Gulab Singh & Sons (hereinafter called the Firm). The said contract was renewed from 1st January,1976 up to 31st Dccember,1984. Since its services were not found satisfactory hence the license was not renewed thereafter. Firm filed a Writ Petition and sought stay. The same was dismissed by this Court on 11th March,1987. Against that order, the Firm filed Special Leave Petition , the same was also dismissed on 6th May,1987. The Supreme Court, however, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition granted time till 31st May,1988 to the Firm to wind up the business on an undertaking to be given by the Firm that thereafter it will surrender the possession of the book stall to the Railway Authorities. One Mr.Vijay Kumar Malhotra was an employee of the Firm. He filed a Writ Petition in Supreme Court challenging the order of Railway Administration and asserting his right on the Book Stall. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »