Delhi Court September 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.
Sudershan Gaba Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: 1997(42)DRJ343
(1) Petitioners 1 to 7 were posted as Assistant Teachers and petitioner No. 8 as Water Woman in respondent No. 3 school. They were confirmed employees. By virtue of an Order dated 8.8.1988 (Annexure-A) the petitioner were directed to be relieved and were asked to report to A.E.O. Shahadra (South) for further posting in diverted capacity and presently as per the affidavit of Shri T.C. Arora. A.E.O.(Grant-in-aid) petitioner No.17 are posted in various primary schools of Municipal Corporation as stated in the said affidavit whereas petitioner No. 8 is posted as a water woman with M.C.D. Education Department(South) Kanti Nagar. Shri T.C. Arora, Assistant Education Officer (Grants-in-Aid) in his affidavit has stated that the petitioners are being paid only 95% of the salary. In the order passed on 12.3.96 the respondents were called upon to clearly as to why the petitioners were not being paid full amount of their salary and also the present place of petitioners' posting. The reason for not...
Dr. (Smt.) Safia Asif Ali Khan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Del)177
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :All these appeals involve identical facts and having been heard together are disposed of by means of a consolidated order.2. Taking up for consideration the appeals pertaining to the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c), the assessed is in appeal for the asst. yrs. 1979-80, 1980-81, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1986-87 whereas the Revenue is in appeal for the asst. yr. 1982-83. This situation has arisen because in the formal assessment years the Dy. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalties under s. 271(1)(c) whereas in the last mentioned assessment year, viz., 1982-83, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty taking note of identical facts. To appreciate the matter it would be necessary on my part to set out the following facts and figures as extracted from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 3220/Del/90, dt. 6th Feb., 1992, that being the assessees appeal under s. 143(3) (sic) pertaining to asst. yr. 1986-87 :Income'Asst. yearOriginally assessedAddl. Income shown Amensty SchemeTo...
Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT112TriDel
1. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, dated 24-4-1990, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. The Id. Collector (Appeals) had held : "The appellants have further contended that the base paper out of which converted paper is manufactured has already suffered duty once and therefore, it could not be subjected to suffer duty once more as this way the amount of cess would exceed l/8th% ad valorem. I do not find any stipulation to this effect in the Notification of the Ministry of Industries No. S.O. 87(E), dated 3-3-1987. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal of the appellants and while upholding the impugned order, I reject the same." 2. The facts of the case in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types of paper and paperboard falling under Chapter No. 48 of the CETA, 1985. The appellants had cleared the papers of coated variety namely, Print Cote Chrome Paper and Pearl Glow Art Paper eligible for exemption under Noti...
Sahitya Sales Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT118TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh rejecting the transaction value or the declared value and confirming the value proposed in the show cause notice and confiscating the imported goods under Clauses (d), (f), (1) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) and allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 25,00,000.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on each of the importing concerns and Rs. 5,00,000.00 on the proprietor under Section 112 (d) of the Act.2. The appellants in two appeals, M/s. Sahitya Sales and M/s. Supreme Trading Corporation are proprietary concerns belonging to the appellant in the third appeal, namely, Shri Gurcharan Singh. Two consignments of old and used diesel engines of Japanese origin were imported in the name of the two proprietary concerns allegedly through a supplier in Singapore. Two Bills of Entry dated 22-12-1993 and 1-1-1994 were submitted respectively along with the ...
Keyar Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT587TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Keyar Industries, Madras being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 13-1-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The matter relates to the classification of the goods described as Air Handling Unit (AHU). The appellants have sought to classify the AHU under Heading No. 84.14 of the Schedule to the, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue had classified the goods in question under Heading No. 84.15 of the Tariff.3. The appeal was originally fixed on 1-7-1987. The Consultant for the appellants requested for an adjournment to a date after 15th September, 1987. The matter was again fixed on 6-8-1996 and the notice to the appellants was issued on 18-7-1996. The notice was sent at the address given by them in their E.A. 3 Form. The notice was returned by the postal authorities with the remark "left". The notice for today's hearing was again issued on 22-8-1996 and this notice had also been returned back by the postal au...
Tamil Nadu Dairy Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Coll. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT513TriDel
1. The appeal is against the order-in-appeal dated 3-3-1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras holding the appellants liable to Central Excise duty on skimmed milk powder produced by them and packed in polythene bags of 25 Kg., 20 Kg., 15 Kg., 10 Kg. packing under Tariff Item 1B of the Central Excise Tariff as was applicable at the material time which covered Prepared Preserved Food put in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale including preparation of ... milk ... not elsewhere specified. He took note of the fact that the goods were specified in Item No. 12 of Notification No. 17/70-C.E., dated 1-3-1970. He held that polythene packing of 25 Kg., 20 Kg., 15 Kg. and 10 Kg. with markings and numbers would constitute unit containers ordinarily intended for sale. H also observed that they had not satisfied the two conditions under Notification No. 145/73 exempting skimmed milk powder used for regeneration of liquid milk within the premises of same factory of...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. LupIn Lab. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT803TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Along with the appeal the appellants also filed the captioned stay application for suspending the operation of the impugned order-in-original.It was the case of the Revenue that the respondents M/s. Lupin Laboratories (P) Ltd. (in short "LLPL") are engaged in the manufacture of PP medicines falling under Chapter 30 of GET, 1985.3. By obtaining what is known as loan licence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which enables the utilisation of factory premises of other persons where authorised PP medicines can be got manufactured, the respondents M/s. LLPL had, during the year 1986-87 (precisely during the period from 1-9-1986 to 31-3-1987), got PP medicine, namely, HEPP manufactured at the factory premises of M/s Jaychem Product (in short M/s "JP") by supplying all the raw materials including packing material and paying job charges ...
Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT108TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellants have agitated the classification of the products.2. The facts of the case are that two show cause notices were issued to the appellants. The first show cause notice was issued on 27-4-1989 and the second show cause notice was issued on 5-5-1989. In the first show cause notice, the appellants had declared two products in their C/List.The first product was Kem Kerrier TCI Cone, and the second product was Kem Kerrier D. Cone. In their C/List, they had claimed classification of the above two products under sub-heading 3402.10 stating sulphonated castor oil and claimed that these products were leviable to duty at nil rate. Samples were drawn from these products and sent to Dy. Chief Chemist. The classification was approved provisionally. The Dy. Chief Chemist opined that the two products stated above are dyes carrier. The Asstt. Collector accordingly issued show cause notice asking the appellants to explain as to why the products should not be class...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT433TriDel
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal 100/CE/Alld/91 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of torches and miniature bulbs. The miniature bulbs manufactured by the appellants are captively consumed by the appellant in manufacture of torches. The appellant also cleared some quantity of miniature bulbs for home consumption after payment of appropriate excise duty. Vide impugned order the benefit of Modvat credit was declined in respect of 11 inputs used in manufacture of miniature bulbs which were cleared for home consumption after payment of appropriate duty on the ground that these inputs were not used in the manufacture of final product i.e. torches as per their declaration.2. The ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants have filed a separate classification list for torches and miniature bulbs. In the appellants' classification list for miniature bulb effec...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jyoti Electrical Motor Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1117TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods Rotors and Stators. The Respondent, M/s.Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Die Cast Rotors and Stators. These Rotors and Stators were used in the manufacture of power driven pumps. The assessee had claimed exemption in respect of these Rotors and Stators under Notification No.64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 (as amended) on the ground that their Die Cast Rotors and Stators were parts of power driven pumps, which were primarily designed for handling water. The Power Driven Pumps were centrifugal pumps (Horizental). The Revenue had classified these Die Cast Rotors and Stators under Heading No. 85.03, which covered, "parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading Nos. 85.01 and 85.02". Heading No. 85.01 covered, "Electric motors and generators (excluding generating sets, Electric generator sets and rotary Converters were classifiable under Heading N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »