Delhi Court October 1997 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.
Supreme Steels and General Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT773; 1997(96)ELT232(Del)
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) Since common questions were involved in a number of writ petitions, we proceeded to hear arguments in these cases and sought assistance from all Counsel appearing in various matters. (2) Arguments of both the parties were heard at some length. In these cases, challenge has been laid to the validity and virus of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 apart from Notification Nos. 24/97,30 to34/97,57/97and58/97and all other connected notifications. In addition, the petitioners have also made a grievance of the scheme whereby mod ivat credit standing to the credit of various petitioners to the with drawal of modivat credit w.e.f. 1.8.1997. Not only that, by that very scheme/ decision, respondent No. 1 has deprived the petitioners of the modivat credit already accrued and available to them. The lapse of the modivat credit in the account of assessees is in the nature of giving retrospective effect to the said notification whereby the credit already earned is sought to be ta...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)720; 70(1997)DLT467; 1997(43)DRJ615
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of various types of motor vehicles. One of the type of motor vehicles manufactured by the petitioners is saloon motors specifiable under head 87.03 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting a tariff rate of excise duty @ 40% ad valorem. (2) The petitioners have appointed their dealers in various cities of the country. They sell their saloon cars through these dealers to customers who may get the saloon card registered with the regional State Transport Authority as taxi for being used as taxi. Such saloon cars used as taxies and so registered are liable to concessional rate of duty of excise as per notification issued from time to time. (3) As it cannot be ascertained by the manufacturers as to which saloon car would be sold for taxi purpose they are required to pay duty on all the cars at full effective rates and claim refund and excise duty paid after complying with the provisions of the relevan...
S.B. Mathur Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1042; 1998(44)DRJ355
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The Short points involved in this writ petition are (i) whether the rule which provides promotion on seniority-cum-merit would mean comparative merit only or seniority and then merit. (ii) whether the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee based on misleading facts can be sustained in law? (2) In order to answer the above points let us have quick glance at the facts of this case. The petitioner was appointed as Sales Assistant by the respondent No.2 i.e. Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. (in short the Corporation). He got promotions from time to time and finally promoted as Manager on 1st January,1993. Respondent No.3 Shri M.L.Chugh was also promoted on 1st January,1993 Along with petitioner. Respondent No.3 was junior to the petitioner by two steps through out. Respondent No.3 started working in the Personnel Department and thus, according to the petitioner, manipulated to win over the Additional General Manager (Personnel) in his favour....
V.K. Ranade Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: 1998RLR365
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal on following counts, namely that order of initiating disciplinary proceedings and of dismissal is bad in law because the same had not been issued by the Disciplinary Authority rather same was ordered by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority assumed the power of Disciplinary Authority and passed the order thereby depriving the petitioner his right of first appeal, secondly, the diplomacy proceedings emanated from common proceedings which is against the circular issued by the respondent and finally the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence alleged. (2) In order to appreciate the points raised let us have quick glance to the facts of the case. The petitioner joined the respondent as Assistant at Patiala. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Manager. The respondent organisation with a view to keep balance in the distribution of foodgrains across the lengt...
U.P. Instruments Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT244TriDel
1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of water meter and supplying to customers in the State of Uttar Pradesh where their factory is situated as well as to other customers in other states. As far as supplies made to their home state is concerned, they are required to get the meters tested by the State Government authorities to have the same stamped under the provisions of the U.P. Waters and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959. For this purpose, the U.P. Government levies, what the appellant has called as tax or fee, a sum of Rs. 5/- per meter. They had not included this amount in the assessable value.Subsequently the Department issued a show cause notice on 17-3-1989 covering the clearances effected during the period March, 1986 to February, 1988. The longer period of limitation was invoked alleging suppression. The impugned order was passed by the Additional Collector confirming the duty demand of Rs. 32,266.35. Aggrieved with the said order appellant has filed the present appeal....
Abilities (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT461TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers among other piston used in motor vehicles. They claimed classification of pistons under Heading 8708 as parts of motor vehicles. This claim has been rejected by department on the ground that pistons are appropriately classifiable as parts of engines under Heading 8409.2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate submits that they manufactured motor vehicle parts. Pistons are commercially known as motor vehicle parts and are traded as such. Apart from this, he submits that the show cause notice dated 4-2-1987 was issued by Assistant Collector for the period April, 1986 to 29-1-1987. Since it was issued for the period exceeding 6 months, the Assistant Collector was not competent to issue this notice and therefore, the entire demand notice is vitiated and merits to be set aside.5. Heading 8708 covers "parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05". As against this Heading 8409 specifically refers to "parts suitable f...
Collector of Customs Vs. Chemilab Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT395TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 22-2-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay, in which the learned Collector of Customs had held that the goods imported - certified reference material - accessories for sepectrometers, were correctly classifiable along with spectrometer under sub-heading No. 9027.30 of the Customs Tariff.In the show casue notice it had been alleged that the goods were classifiable as checking standards under sub-heading No. 9031.80 of the tariff. In appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the goods were classifiable under Heading No 98.02 of the Customs Tariff as laboratory chemicals.2. We have heard Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the appellants/Revenue and Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the respondents, M/s. Chemilab Corporation.3. Under sub-heading No. 9802.00 Laboratory Chemicals are classifiable.It had been explained in Chapter Note 3 under Chapter 98 that Heading No. 98.02 covers a...
Gujarat Insecticides Limited Vs. Collector of C Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT432TriDel
1. The dispute involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was liable to pay excise duty on his product Metaphennoxy Benzaldehyde manufactured by them and partly utilised for captive consumption based on the price at which he sells the same to his customers. Appellant had filed a price list claiming assessable value of Rs. 270/- per kg. for the goods captively consumed. The department found that the assessable value declared by them for the same product which was being sold was Rs. 316/- per kg. Show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of differential duty by enhancing the price from Rs. 270/- per kg. to Rs. 316/- per kg. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, the Assistant Collector dropped the demand. Aggrieved with the decision of the Assistant Collector, the Department filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who allowed the same. The present appeal has been filed challenging the correctness of the appellate decision taken by the Collector (Appeals) an...
Siyaram Platex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT764TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 11-10-1996, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. By this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. By the show cause notice dated 1-6-1993, the appellants were called upon to explain as to why the Modvat credit utilised by them to the extent of Rs. 2,56,530.90 should not be recovered for wrongly utilising the said credit for the period 18-11-1992 to 30-12-1992 in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57A, 57G and 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A corrigendum dated 14-7-1993 was issued seeking correction of the amount of Rs. 1,72,019.50. Another show cause notice dated 24-12-1993 was issued under Section 11A on the same facts seeking a demand of Rs. 2,05,601.83. Both these amounts have been confirmed in the Order-in-Original.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP tapes, woven fabrics and ...
Satinder Singh Vs. the State (National Capital Territory of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)576; 69(1997)DLT577; 1997(43)DRJ492
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was apprehended with the contraband, i.e., 2 kgs. of heroin near Delhi Public Library and that he was given the option of being searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer/Magistrate, which he declined. The notice under Section 50, being Exhibit Public Witness 1/A was read over to me, containing the endorsement, 'Main Apni Talashi Kisi G.O. Ya Magistrate Ke Samne Nahin Dena Chahta'. Thus it is argued by the prosecution that Section 50 stands fully complied with. Mr. Mathur, however, has disputed this and has stated that not only Section 50 notice was prepared later on in the police station, but the entire seizure etc. was effected inside the police station and not on the spot where the appellant was apprehended. Mr. Mathur states that the story of the defense is that the entire quantity of the contraband was planted and that mandatory conditions of Section 50 have not been complied with. Mr. Mathur has drawn my attent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »